Official Journal C72E Volume 44 of the European Communities 6 March 2001

ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C72E Volume 44 of the European Communities 6 March 2001

English edition Information and Notices

Notice No Contents Page

I (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2001/C 72 E/001) E-0326/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Swordfish catch quotas ...... 1

(2001/C 72 E/002) E-0487/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the Commission Subject: Comitology ...... 2

(2001/C 72 E/003) E-0539/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Council Subject: Pay of officials of the European Investment Bank (EIB) ...... 3

(2001/C 72 E/004) E-0554/00 by Theodorus Bouwman and Karla Peijs to the Commission Subject: Hours of work for cockpit crew, air traffic safety and the internal market ...... 4

(2001/C 72 E/005) E-0696/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: Streamlining procedures for drawing up Court of Auditors’ reports ...... 5

(2001/C 72 E/006) E-0711/00 by Ioannis Marínos to the Council Subject: Statements by the British Foreign Secretary on Cyprus ...... 6

(2001/C 72 E/007) E-0823/00 by Michiel van Hulten to the Commission Subject: European school milk measure ...... 7

(2001/C 72 E/008) E-0860/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos and Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Fisheries agreement with Mexico ...... 8

(2001/C 72 E/009) E-0862/00 by Marielle De Sarnez to the Commission Subject: Commission view on the introduction of advertising into state educational establishments ...... 8

(2001/C 72 E/010) E-0947/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Income and social protection of women employed in shellfish harvesting ...... 9

(2001/C 72 E/011) E-0956/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Abandonment of cultivated land ...... 10 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 72 E/012) E-0972/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Aid from Community funds (Supplementary Answer) ...... 11 (2001/C 72 E/013) E-0980/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Discriminatory provisions in the law on property of a number of applicant countries ...... 12 (2001/C 72 E/014) E-0981/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Discriminatory provisions in the law of property of the Czech Republic ...... 12 (2001/C 72 E/015) E-0982/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Political developments in the law on property of individual applicant countries ...... 12 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0980/00, E-0981/00 and E-0982/00 ...... 12 (2001/C 72 E/016) E-1035/00 by Ulla Sandbæk to the Commission Subject: WTO ...... 13 (2001/C 72 E/017) E-1047/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Transfer of 3 000 tonnes of anchovies between Portugal and France ...... 14 (2001/C 72 E/018) P-1049/00 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: OLAF ...... 15 (2001/C 72 E/019) E-1051/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: Minimum landing size for flatfish under EU Regulation 850/98 ...... 16 (2001/C 72 E/020) E-1052/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: EU Regulation 850/98: monitoring compliance with the provisions laid down in Title III, Article 29 (maximum engine power of 221 kW) ...... 17 (2001/C 72 E/021) E-1093/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Antibiotics in hens’ eggs ...... 18 (2001/C 72 E/022) E-1115/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Protection of animals during transport ...... 19 (2001/C 72 E/023) E-1159/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 20 (2001/C 72 E/024) P-1169/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Modified cotton seeds ...... 21 (2001/C 72 E/025) P-1170/00 by Arlindo Cunha to the Commission Subject: Milk quota in Portugal ...... 22 (2001/C 72 E/026) E-1171/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Support for nuclear energy and renewable energies ...... 23 (2001/C 72 E/027) E-1173/00 by Malcolm Harbour to the Commission Subject: Information society funding in the automotive sector ...... 24 (2001/C 72 E/028) E-1174/00 by Malcolm Harbour to the Commission Subject: Research in the automotive sector ...... 25 (2001/C 72 E/029) E-1197/00 by Margrietus van den Berg to the Commission Subject: The Consultative Group on International Research ...... 27 (2001/C 72 E/030) E-1199/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Medicines administered to children ...... 28 (2001/C 72 E/031) E-1207/00 by Ursula Schleicher to the Council Subject: Bathing water Directive ...... 29 (2001/C 72 E/032) E-1214/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Van Buitenen parliamentary questions ...... 29 (2001/C 72 E/033) E-1240/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: Situation of the cormorant Phalacrocorax (carbo carbo) in Directive 79/409 ...... 30 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 72 E/034) E-1243/00 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli to the Commission Subject: Contract awarded by the municipality of Messina for the construction of a tramway funded by the Euro- pean Union ...... 30 (2001/C 72 E/035) P-1247/00 by Pasqualina Napoletano to the Commission Subject: Abduction of Somali children from the Italian families charged with their custody ...... 31 (2001/C 72 E/036) E-1256/00 by Armando Cossutta to the Commission Subject: Radioactive bombs in Kosovo ...... 32 (2001/C 72 E/037) E-1261/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Relocating the Empresa Nacional de Celulosa-Electroquímica del Noroeste (ENCE-ELNOSA) industrial complex, located in the town of Pontevedra on the estuary of the same name in Galicia ...... 33 (2001/C 72 E/038) P-1278/00 by Eurig Wyn to the Commission Subject: Agriculture flax and hemp ...... 34 (2001/C 72 E/039) E-1283/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Exporting waste to third countries/Basle Convention ...... 35 (2001/C 72 E/040) E-1285/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Subsidies to coal and nuclear sectors ...... 36 (2001/C 72 E/041) E-1289/00 by Pasqualina Napoletano to the Council Subject: Abduction of Somali children from the Italian families charged with their custody ...... 37 (2001/C 72 E/042) E-1290/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: The High Authority for Telecommunications ...... 39 (2001/C 72 E/043) E-1295/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Driving licences and diabetes ...... 40 (2001/C 72 E/044) E-1306/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: The welfare of broiler chickens ...... 40 (2001/C 72 E/045) E-1308/00 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Rules for third-country shipments ...... 41 (2001/C 72 E/046) E-1317/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Excessive use of water resources (municipalities of S. Giovanni in Persiceto and Crevalcore) ...... 42 (2001/C 72 E/047) E-1319/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: European school milk scheme ...... 43 (2001/C 72 E/048) E-1321/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: Hunger relief in Ethiopia and other African countries ...... 44 (2001/C 72 E/049) P-1325/00 by Caroline Lucas to the Commission Subject: Industrial animal husbandry ...... 45 (2001/C 72 E/050) E-1331/00 by Giovanni Pittella to the Commission Subject: Possibility of EU citizens bringing cases of violations of fundamental rights before the Court of Justice .. 46 (2001/C 72 E/051) E-1341/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Closed areas for bottom trawling in the Cantabrian Sea ...... 47 (2001/C 72 E/052) E-1351/00 by Helmuth Markov to the Commission Subject: Report on radioactive pollution of mineral water by radium 226 ...... 47 (2001/C 72 E/053) E-1352/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Spanish olive oil and the EU ...... 48 (2001/C 72 E/054) E-1380/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: Signing and ratification of the CEDAW and the Optional Protocol ...... 49 (2001/C 72 E/055) E-1381/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: Establishment of a Council of Ministers responsible for equality between women and men ...... 50 (2001/C 72 E/056) P-1395/00 by Hans-Peter Mayer to the Commission Subject: Investment subsidies for on-site cold stores ...... 50 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 72 E/057) E-1397/00 by Bernd Lange to the Commission Subject: Implementation of Directive 92/61/EEC in Germany specified types of tyre ...... 51 (2001/C 72 E/058) E-1399/00 by Phillip Whitehead to the Commission Subject: Certificate of Pharmaceutical Products ...... 52 (2001/C 72 E/059) E-1400/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Safety risks in Spanish mining dams ...... 52 (2001/C 72 E/060) P-1414/00 by David Bowe to the Commission Subject: Projects involving genetically modified crops in developing countries ...... 54 (2001/C 72 E/061) E-1417/00 by Bill Miller to the Commission Subject: Capital investment ...... 54 (2001/C 72 E/062) E-1421/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Corruption within the European Commission (return of misappropriated funds) ...... 55 (2001/C 72 E/063) E-1424/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Incorporation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union ...... 56 (2001/C 72 E/064) E-1425/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Treaty violations ...... 56 (2001/C 72 E/065) E-1426/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: (Consolidated) Treaty violations ...... 57 (2001/C 72 E/066) E-1427/00 by Charles Tannock, John Bowis, Philip Bushill-Matthews, Carlos Coelho, Gian- franco Dell’Alba, Carlo Fatuzzo, Francesco Fiori, Jacqueline Foster, José García-Margallo y Marfil, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Mario Mantovani, Adriana Poli Bortone, José Ribeiro e Castro, Lennart Sacrédeus, Dana Scallon, Mariotto Segni, Francesco Speroni, Robert Sturdy, Mar- gie Sudre, Geoffrey Van Orden, Ari Vatanen, Rainer Wieland and Jürgen Zimmerling to the Commission Subject: The Commission’s role in upholding the Treaties with specific reference to the male descendants of the Houses of Habsburg and Savoy ...... 57

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1425/00, E-1426/00 and E-1427/00 ...... 57 (2001/C 72 E/067) E-1434/00 by Malcolm Harbour to the Commission Subject: Water fluoridation ...... 58 (2001/C 72 E/068) E-1443/00 by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero to the Council Subject: Article 13 and the intergovernmental conference ...... 59 (2001/C 72 E/069) E-1448/00 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler to the Commission Subject: Financial support from DG Trade for Brazilian non-governmental environmental organisations ...... 60 (2001/C 72 E/070) E-1454/00 by Béatrice Patrie to the Commission Subject: Publication of a feasibility study on the establishment of a European structure for health monitoring and evaluation ...... 61 (2001/C 72 E/071) E-1464/00 by Jillian Evans to the Commission Subject: Financial aid to Nantygwyddon landfill site ...... 61 (2001/C 72 E/072) E-1477/00 by Harlem Désir and Jean-Claude Fruteau to the Commission Subject: Commission position on common organisation of market in bananas ...... 62 (2001/C 72 E/073) E-1479/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the Commission Subject: Investigation of the energy drink ‘Red Bull’ ...... 62 (2001/C 72 E/074) E-1483/00 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Reduction of ecopoint quotas ...... 63 (2001/C 72 E/075) E-1484/00 by Paul Rübig to the Council Subject: Competence of European Court of Justice in relation to Article 7 of the EU Treaty ...... 64 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 72 E/076) E-1485/00 by Gerhard Schmid to the Commission Subject: Development of the A6 as an international trunk road from Paris to Prague assistance for the section in the Czech Republic ...... 65 (2001/C 72 E/077) E-1486/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: EU-funded Gay and Lesbian Educational Equity Project Pilot Schools meeting in Oulu, Finland ...... 65 (2001/C 72 E/078) P-1497/00 by Mathieu Grosch to the Commission Subject: EU-Switzerland agreement and effects of the fourth motor vehicle directive on that agreement ...... 66 (2001/C 72 E/079) E-1499/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Council Subject: Risk posed by NATO warplanes to nuclear power stations in Western Slovakia ...... 67 (2001/C 72 E/080) E-1503/00 by Ilka Schröder to the Commission Subject: New round of World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations ...... 68 (2001/C 72 E/081) E-1504/00 by Ilka Schröder to the Commission Subject: Entry into force of EU-Mexico trade agreement ...... 68 (2001/C 72 E/082) E-1524/00 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Residential estate near spoil dump ...... 69 (2001/C 72 E/083) P-1528/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the Council Subject: The ‘Bosman case’ revision of the EC Treaty and addition of a protocol on professional football or sport in general ...... 70 (2001/C 72 E/084) P-1543/00 by Mikko Pesälä to the Commission Subject: Progress on the horizontal plan for the development of rural areas ...... 71 (2001/C 72 E/085) P-1544/00 by Vitaliano Gemelli to the Council Subject: Economic and monetary policies ...... 72 (2001/C 72 E/086) P-1545/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Amendments to the Netherlands Exceptional Medical Expenses Act and freedom of movement of persons in the EU ...... 73 (2001/C 72 E/087) E-1546/00 by Jeffrey Titford to the Commission Subject: Turkey’s human rights record and membership of the EU ...... 74 (2001/C 72 E/088) E-1551/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Validity of the application of purchasing power parity (PPP) ...... 75 (2001/C 72 E/089) E-1553/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Market prices and values ...... 75 (2001/C 72 E/090) E-1555/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the Commission Subject: Freedom of religion in Macedonia ...... 76 (2001/C 72 E/091) E-1565/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Government aid for audiovisual productions ...... 77 (2001/C 72 E/092) P-1572/00 by Nicholas Clegg to the Council Subject: Public statements by Council officials ...... 78 (2001/C 72 E/093) E-1574/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Land development on Penteli ...... 78 (2001/C 72 E/094) E-1575/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Relation between mortality rates and air pollution ...... 79 (2001/C 72 E/095) E-1579/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: ‘European Museum’ project ...... 80 (2001/C 72 E/096) P-1580/00 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the Commission Subject: Ritual slaughter of live animals ...... 81 (2001/C 72 E/097) P-1585/00 by Kyösti Virrankoski to the Commission Subject: Finland’s horizontal rural development programme ...... 82 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 72 E/098) E-1587/00 by Jürgen Zimmerling to the Commission Subject: Effects of the resolutions on Cyprus ...... 83 (2001/C 72 E/099) E-1591/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: Canary Islands transport network project ...... 84 (2001/C 72 E/100) E-1596/00 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: Pre-trial detention ...... 84 (2001/C 72 E/101) E-1605/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Sewer systems in Pendeli ...... 85 (2001/C 72 E/102) E-1606/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Sport event for kidney sufferers ...... 86 (2001/C 72 E/103) E-1607/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Illegal collection of waste oils ...... 86 (2001/C 72 E/104) E-1615/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Harmonisation of the rights of literary translators ...... 87 (2001/C 72 E/105) E-1616/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: The euro ...... 88 (2001/C 72 E/106) E-1625/00 by Andre Brie to the Council Subject: Civil war in Sudan ...... 89 (2001/C 72 E/107) E-1626/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Statistics on unemployment in Greece ...... 89 (2001/C 72 E/108) E-1632/00 by Richard Howitt to the Commission Subject: Collapse of AY Bank in the former Yugoslavia ...... 90 (2001/C 72 E/109) E-1634/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Duty on the transport of fuel across borders ...... 91 (2001/C 72 E/110) E-1635/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: VAT proposals ...... 92 (2001/C 72 E/111) E-1645/00 by Armando Cossutta to the Commission Subject: Video games and depleted uranium ...... 93 (2001/C 72 E/112) P-1660/00 by Patricia McKenna to the Commission Subject: Regeneration of Ballymun, Dublin, Ireland ...... 94 (2001/C 72 E/113) P-1661/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Euro 2000 football tournament ...... 94 (2001/C 72 E/114) E-1666/00 by Mario Mauro to the Council Subject: Violation of children’s rights ...... 95 (2001/C 72 E/115) E-1673/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers ...... 96 (2001/C 72 E/116) E-1674/00 by Jillian Evans to the Commission Subject: Resolution of Religious freedom ...... 96 (2001/C 72 E/117) E-1675/00 by Jillian Evans to the Commission Subject: Disabled air travellers ...... 97 (2001/C 72 E/118) E-1676/00 by Jillian Evans to the Commission Subject: Methylphenidate ...... 97 (2001/C 72 E/119) E-1678/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Relay Europe ...... 98 (2001/C 72 E/120) E-1680/00 by Michel Hansenne to the Commission Subject: VAT on work done under contract ...... 99 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 72 E/121) E-1683/00 by Per Stenmarck to the Commission Subject: Vehicle inspection monopoly on Swedish market ...... 100 (2001/C 72 E/122) E-1689/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Swedish state aid to Bengtfors in Sweden ...... 100 (2001/C 72 E/123) E-1691/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Commission’s examination of ban on Swedish professional boxing ...... 101 (2001/C 72 E/124) E-1694/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Aid to Sweden for information concerning EMU ...... 102 (2001/C 72 E/125) E-1708/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: Continuing violation of Rule 44 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure by the Council ..... 102 (2001/C 72 E/126) E-1709/00 by Diana Wallis to the Commission Subject: Distance marketing of financial services and electronic commerce: consistency of information requirement in Commission proposals ...... 102 (2001/C 72 E/127) E-1714/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: La Punta agricultural area (Valencia, Spain) ...... 103 (2001/C 72 E/128) E-1719/00 by Raffaele Costa, Francesco Fiori, Stefano Zappalà, Mario Mantovani, Vittorio Sgarbi, Luigi Cesaro, Amalia Sartori, Renato Brunetta, Antonio Tajani, Giuseppe Gargani, Francesco Musotto, Guido Viceconte, Giorgio Lisi, Mario Mauro, Giuseppe Nisticò, Mar- cello Dell’Utri, Guido Podestà, Raffaele Fitto, Umberto Scapagnini, Pier Casini and Raffaele Lombardo to the Commission Subject: The euro crisis ...... 104 (2001/C 72 E/129) P-1721/00 by Andrew Duff to the Council Subject: IGC ...... 105 (2001/C 72 E/130) E-1725/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Turkey disputes the sovereign rights of Greek islands in the Aegean ...... 105 (2001/C 72 E/131) E-1728/00 by Ioannis Souladakis, Ulpu Iivari and Michel Rocard to the Council Subject: Safeguarding of European music copyright in the United States ...... 106 (2001/C 72 E/132) E-1741/00 by Andrew Duff to the Council Subject: The IGC ...... 107 (2001/C 72 E/133) E-1744/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Haemophiliacs ...... 107 (2001/C 72 E/134) E-1745/00 by Mary Banotti to the Commission Subject: Transport ...... 108 (2001/C 72 E/135) E-1751/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Location of a high-voltage underground electrical power line in a residential area ...... 108 (2001/C 72 E/136) E-1752/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: Numbers of persons holding licences to drive motor vehicles ...... 109 (2001/C 72 E/137) E-1760/00 by Joaquim Miranda to the Commission Subject: Quality of water for human consumption on the Azores ...... 109 (2001/C 72 E/138) E-1761/00 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Travel to the elections in Greece ...... 110 (2001/C 72 E/139) P-1763/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Crisis in the olive oil market proposal to amend Regulation (EEC) No. 2568/91 and establishment of a Community database ...... 111 (2001/C 72 E/140) P-1764/00 by Glyn Ford to the Council Subject: Freedom of the press in Russia ...... 112 (2001/C 72 E/141) E-1768/00 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: The Hallmarking of Precious Metals ...... 112 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 72 E/142) P-1771/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Rail services in Ireland ...... 113 (2001/C 72 E/143) P-1772/00 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission Subject: Payment of compensation and collection of levies on the basis of unconfirmed data which was not notified to the Commission ...... 114 (2001/C 72 E/144) E-1774/00 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz to the Commission Subject: Net contributors in the European Union ...... 115 (2001/C 72 E/145) E-1775/00 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Taxation of interest on foreign accounts and dividends on foreign shares in Austria ...... 116 (2001/C 72 E/146) E-1776/00 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Council Subject: Substandard European Union publications ...... 117 (2001/C 72 E/147) E-1782/00 by Eryl McNally to the Commission Subject: Council of European Energy Regulators ...... 117 (2001/C 72 E/148) E-1783/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Compulsory use of typewriters ...... 118 (2001/C 72 E/149) E-1786/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Inclusion of the European flag in the liveries worn by aircraft belonging to airlines from Community countries ...... 119 (2001/C 72 E/150) P-1799/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the Council Subject: Withdrawal from EMU ...... 120 (2001/C 72 E/151) P-1801/00 by Christian Rovsing to the Commission Subject: Unlawful provision of state aid to Post Danmark by the Danish government ...... 120 (2001/C 72 E/152) P-1802/00 by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou to the Commission Subject: Ozgur case ...... 121 (2001/C 72 E/153) P-1803/00 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Ferry services in remote areas ...... 121 (2001/C 72 E/154) E-1812/00 by Nuala Ahern to the Commission Subject: Studies of the radiological effects on Ireland of the operation of Sellafield ...... 122 (2001/C 72 E/155) E-1815/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Labelling of turron ...... 123 (2001/C 72 E/156) E-1816/00 by Mauro Nobilia to the Commission Subject: Recovery of sums paid out under Article 29 of Law No 427/1993 on unadulterated polyethylene .... 124 (2001/C 72 E/157) P-1989/00 by Giovanni Procacci to the Commission Subject: Recovery of sums paid under Article 29a of Law 427/93 on non-recycled polyethylene ...... 124

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1816/00 and P-1989/00 ...... 125 (2001/C 72 E/158) P-1827/00 by Raimon Obiols i Germà to the Council Subject: Algeria-EU Association agreement ...... 125 (2001/C 72 E/159) P-1829/00 by Giorgio Celli to the Commission Subject: Exploitation of Lake Trasimeno’s water ...... 126 (2001/C 72 E/160) P-1834/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Dealing with the manufacture and distribution of pharmaceuticals in the central and eastern European applicant countries, and their impact on the EU after accession ...... 127 (2001/C 72 E/161) P-1835/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Trans-Pyrenean highway Navarre-Aquitaine ...... 128 (2001/C 72 E/162) E-1845/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Free movement of capital ...... 129 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 72 E/163) E-1846/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Licensing and supervision of aircraft pilots ...... 130 (2001/C 72 E/164) E-1847/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Noise pollution from aircraft ...... 131 (2001/C 72 E/165) E-1851/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Reciprocity in health care ...... 131 (2001/C 72 E/166) E-1853/00 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the Commission Subject: Funds for Turkey ...... 132 (2001/C 72 E/167) E-1854/00 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the Commission Subject: International Criminal Court (ICC) ...... 133 (2001/C 72 E/168) E-1855/00 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Differential pricing by airlines ...... 134 (2001/C 72 E/169) E-1856/00 by Joan Colom i Naval and Alonso Puerta to the Commission Subject: Languages used for Commission press releases ...... 134 (2001/C 72 E/170) E-1861/00 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm to the Commission Subject: Special protection zones for birds in the Valencian Autonomous Community ...... 135 (2001/C 72 E/171) E-1862/00 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm to the Council Subject: Red tuna catches in Dènia and Gandía ...... 135 (2001/C 72 E/172) E-1865/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Risks to the safety of workers and citizens as a result of applying national rules on health and safety in the workplace to public works tunnel building operations ...... 136 (2001/C 72 E/173) E-1870/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Prisons and the ‘third pillar’ ...... 137 (2001/C 72 E/174) E-1871/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Body piercing: risks and information ...... 138 (2001/C 72 E/175) P-1874/00 by Michiel van Hulten to the Commission Subject: European food aid to Russia ...... 139 (2001/C 72 E/176) E-1881/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Price of fuel in Spain ...... 140 (2001/C 72 E/177) E-1884/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Harmonisation of systems for the notification of public acts ...... 141 (2001/C 72 E/178) E-1885/00 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: EU aid to Turkey in the context of customs cooperation ...... 142 (2001/C 72 E/179) E-1887/00 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: Infringement of the New York Convention on the rights of the child ...... 143 (2001/C 72 E/180) E-1890/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Use of languages by the Commission in the Brussels Capital Region ...... 144 (2001/C 72 E/181) P-1894/00 by Jan Wiersma to the Commission Subject: Forest fires in polluted areas of Belarus and the Ukraine ...... 145 (2001/C 72 E/182) E-1899/00 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission Subject: EU assistance for the Internet website ‘Südtirol-Online’ ...... 145 (2001/C 72 E/183) P-1905/00 by Michael Cashman to the Commission Subject: Marriage contracts ...... 146 (2001/C 72 E/184) P-1907/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Beal Valley Contract: public procurement ...... 147 (2001/C 72 E/185) E-1911/00 by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission Subject: Grants for exchanges ...... 148 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 72 E/186) E-1921/00 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Loans to Turkey ...... 149 (2001/C 72 E/187) E-1924/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Enlargement and decentralisation ...... 150 (2001/C 72 E/188) E-1925/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya to the Commission Subject: Recommendation for a gas pipeline for the Balearic Islands ...... 150 (2001/C 72 E/189) E-1930/00 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission Subject: Equal Initiative in the Netherlands ...... 151 (2001/C 72 E/190) E-1939/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Budget Item A-3021 ...... 152 (2001/C 72 E/191) E-1940/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Budget items relating to culture ...... 152 (2001/C 72 E/192) E-1941/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Budget Item A-3025 ...... 153 (2001/C 72 E/193) E-1944/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Compatibility with the single European market of the ‘golden share’ retained by the Spanish Government in the merger between Telefónica and KPN ...... 153 (2001/C 72 E/194) E-1945/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Acquisitions in the Spanish market in electricity generation ...... 154 (2001/C 72 E/195) E-1946/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Assessment of the costs of transition to competition in the acquisition of a Spanish electricity firm .... 155 (2001/C 72 E/196) P-1948/00 by Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: Restitution of real property expropriated by the Yugoslavian Communist regime ...... 155 (2001/C 72 E/197) E-1949/00 by Ulla Sandbæk to the Commission Subject: Biomedical ethics and bioethics ...... 156 (2001/C 72 E/198) E-1955/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Compensation for mussel farmers in Northern Greece ...... 157 (2001/C 72 E/199) E-1956/00 by Nuala Ahern to the Commission Subject: Professional affiliations and backgrounds of the members of the expert panel on Atomic Energy Questions 157 (2001/C 72 E/200) E-1962/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez to the Commission Subject: Use of tuna loin quotas ...... 158 (2001/C 72 E/201) E-1967/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the Commission Subject: New policy on Indonesia ...... 158 (2001/C 72 E/202) E-1968/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the Commission Subject: East Timor’s accession to the Lomé Convention ...... 159 (2001/C 72 E/203) E-1969/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the Commission Subject: Contributions to East Timor from the European Union and its Member States ...... 159 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1968/00 and E-1969/00 ...... 160 (2001/C 72 E/204) E-1982/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Legal challenges to the extension of An Post’s contract to provide social welfare payments in Ireland . . . 160 (2001/C 72 E/205) P-1985/00 by María Izquierdo Rojo to the Commission Subject: Irresponsibility and risks concerning mad cow disease in Spain ...... 161 (2001/C 72 E/206) P-1988/00 by Carlos Coelho to the Commission Subject: Internal market: delays in transposing European directives ...... 162 (2001/C 72 E/207) E-1992/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the Commission Subject: TvDanmark ...... 163 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 72 E/208) E-1994/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Urban waste water treatment systems in Greece ...... 163

(2001/C 72 E/209) E-1996/00 by Pat Gallagher to the Commission Subject: Price differences for the posting of printed matter ...... 164

(2001/C 72 E/210) E-1998/00 by Didier Rod to the Commission Subject: DG I contracts involving subsidies to Brazilian NGOs ...... 165

(2001/C 72 E/211) E-2001/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Lack of information from European railway operators in international train timetables ...... 165

(2001/C 72 E/212) E-2002/00 by Erik Meijer and Helmuth Markov to the Commission Subject: Loss of direct rail link between the Netherlands and the German border town of Emmerich in November 2000 ...... 166

(2001/C 72 E/213) P-2004/00 by Margot Keßler to the Commission Subject: Proposal for a Council Regulation determining the list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement 167

(2001/C 72 E/214) P-2005/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Law No 196 of the 1997 TREU Package ...... 168

(2001/C 72 E/215) E-2010/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: Changing old coins into euros ...... 169

(2001/C 72 E/216) E-2016/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: EU shipbuilding industry ...... 169

(2001/C 72 E/217) E-2025/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Budgetary contributions of Member States ...... 170

(2001/C 72 E/218) E-2027/00 by Reino Paasilinna to the Commission Subject: Position of workers, their legal security and work protection in paedophile cases ...... 171

(2001/C 72 E/219) E-2031/00 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: Vietnam: meeting between Mr Prodi and Mr Lê Kha Phiêu ...... 171

(2001/C 72 E/220) E-2035/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: International air links from Galicia ...... 172

(2001/C 72 E/221) E-2036/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Unemployment in Galicia ...... 173

(2001/C 72 E/222) E-2061/00 by Per Gahrton to the Commission Subject: Visa requirements in respect of Romania and Bulgaria ...... 174

(2001/C 72 E/223) P-2064/00 by Luciana Sbarbati to the Commission Subject: Role of consultancy firms and project monitoring in the implementation of the LIFE Nature programme 174

(2001/C 72 E/224) P-2065/00 by Vitaliano Gemelli to the Commission Subject: Recognition of qualifications ...... 175

(2001/C 72 E/225) E-2067/00 by Joachim Wuermeling to the Commission Subject: Excessive certification requirements thwart crockery imports into Turkey ...... 176

(2001/C 72 E/226) E-2104/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Lobby groups ...... 177

(2001/C 72 E/227) E-2109/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Item A-3026 ...... 177

(2001/C 72 E/228) E-2114/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Impact of State aid to Spanish electricity companies: real competition on the generation market ..... 178 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 72 E/229) E-2115/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Quantification of the costs of transition to competition (CTCs) for the Spanish electricity industry in the procedure initiated by the Commission ...... 178 (2001/C 72 E/230) E-2119/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the Commission Subject: Future of the Community twinning programme ...... 179 (2001/C 72 E/231) E-2135/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Greece’s failure to observe the CITES regulation ...... 180 (2001/C 72 E/232) E-2136/00 by Roger Helmer to the Commission Subject: Ban on horse riding on designated roads ...... 181 (2001/C 72 E/233) E-2137/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Stage reached in the infringement proceedings opened against Spain for incorrect transposal of the directive on public works contracts ...... 181 (2001/C 72 E/234) E-2146/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Milk for confectionery ...... 182 (2001/C 72 E/235) P-2153/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Ethics and European law ...... 182 (2001/C 72 E/236) P-2159/00 by Richard Howitt to the Commission Subject: Application for student loans ...... 183 (2001/C 72 E/237) E-2175/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: European social statute for housewives ...... 184 (2001/C 72 E/238) E-2181/00 by Bertel Haarder to the Commission Subject: Authority responsible for checking recreational craft bearing CE marking ...... 185 (2001/C 72 E/239) E-2212/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Funding of information booklets ...... 186 (2001/C 72 E/240) P-2214/00 by Gary Titley to the Commission Subject: Exclusion of EU-based Japanese car companies ...... 186 (2001/C 72 E/241) E-2224/00 by Béatrice Patrie to the Commission Subject: Recognition of the denturologist’s (or denturist’s) profession ...... 187 (2001/C 72 E/242) E-2242/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen and Maria Martens to the Commission Subject: Member States’ legislation on the loan of museum exhibits ...... 188 (2001/C 72 E/243) P-2249/00 by Diana Wallis to the Commission Subject: Draft Common Position on the Copyright (COM(97) 628) ...... 189 (2001/C 72 E/244) E-2262/00 by Brice Hortefeux to the Commission Subject: Community transport policy: goods in circulation in the European Union under the TIR international road transport scheme ...... 190 (2001/C 72 E/245) E-2285/00 by Karl von Wogau to the Commission Subject: Admission of a German citizen to employment as a hunting warden in France ...... 191 (2001/C 72 E/246) E-2296/00 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Uniform Community patent ...... 191 (2001/C 72 E/247) E-2300/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: The Commission’s ‘port package’ and fishing ports ...... 192 (2001/C 72 E/248) P-2323/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Inclusion of Schinia (Attica) in the Natura 2000 network ...... 193 (2001/C 72 E/249) P-2325/00 by Freddy Blak to the Commission Subject: Migrants Forum ...... 193 (2001/C 72 E/250) E-2355/00 by Mario Mauro, Giorgio Lisi and Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and competition in connection with the situation of teachers in schools officially recognised as equivalent to State schools ...... 194 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 72 E/251) P-2422/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Obstacles to the movement of goods between Spain and Portugal ...... 195 (2001/C 72 E/252) E-2434/00 by Michel Hansenne to the Commission Subject: VAT and dress making ...... 196 (2001/C 72 E/253) E-2489/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Work in prisons ...... 196 (2001/C 72 E/254) P-2530/00 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the Commission Subject: Fires in southern Europe ...... 197 (2001/C 72 E/255) E-2545/00 by José Pomés Ruiz to the Commission Subject: Decentralised cooperation with Latin America ...... 197 (2001/C 72 E/256) E-2564/00 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the Commission Subject: Abolition of visas for Bulgaria and Romania ...... 198 (2001/C 72 E/257) E-2575/00 by Ilda Figueiredo and Arlindo Cunha to the Commission Subject: Rules governing the application of agro-environmental measures in Portugal ...... 198 (2001/C 72 E/258) E-2703/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Residence of EU nationals in another Member State ...... 199 (2001/C 72 E/259) E-2807/00 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission Subject: Use of an industrial site reclaimed through EU aid ...... 199 (2001/C 72 E/260) P-2811/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Improving the standard of slaughterhouses in candidate Member States ...... 200

EN 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/1

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2001/C 72 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0326/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Swordfish catch quotas

At the 16th plenary meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), at which catch quotas were set for tunidae, the EU delegation’s attitude towards defending swordfish quotas (which are of major importance to the survival of part of the Spanish fishing fleet) was blatantly discriminatory and inhibitory when France and Italy were protecting their interests in respect of bluefin tuna, whilst Spain lost over 5 % of its North Atlantic swordfish quota.

This quota reduction will affect Galicia’s fishing fleet, which continues to lose over 1 000 tonnes per year. In view of this extremely serious matter, what will the Commission’s attitude be at the meeting of the ICCAT Working Party on quota assignment criteria, which is to be held in Madrid on 6, 7 and 8 April? Will the Commission continue to lack a political strategy to protect the interests of the Galician fleet?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The Community quota for swordfish adopted by the International commission for the conservation of Atlantic tuna (ICCAT) at the last annual meeting of this organisation, held in November 1999, must be considered in the general context of the discussions concerning the management of swordfish in this organisation.

All ICCAT scientists agreed that Atlantic swordfish is at present clearly overexploited, and all parties in ICCAT agreed to the principle that it was necessary to adopt a rebuilding programme that would allow the recovery of the stock to a level allowing maximum sustainable yield. The measure finally adopted by ICCAT is a management plan to rebuild the stock in a period of 10 years. It combines a clear objective of reaching maximum sustainable yield while providing a reasonable period to achieve that objective, thus avoiding drastic short-term measures.

Once the total allowable catch (TAC) was decided, the Community quota was calculated on the basis of the existing percentage share of this resource assigned to Spain and Portugal in 1997, plus a part corresponding to the catches of other Member States of the Community taken under the ‘others’ quota, according to the same ICCAT recommendation of 1997. C 72 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

It must be borne in mind that previous catch limitations in ICCAT (prior to the Community’s accession) assigned specific quotas only to Spain and Portugal, and considered catches by other countries (including other Community Member States) under a general provision recommending to keep their catches at existing levels. On this basis, the quota of Member States other than Spain and Portugal, to be added to the latter when calculating the total Community quota in ICCAT, corresponds to their catches in 1995 and 1996, as specified by the 1997 ICCAT recommendation.

The measures adopted were agreed by Member States at co-ordination meetings on the spot. Further, the Community position with regard to swordfish was agreed independently from its position on bluefin tuna. There was no linkage of any kind between the two questions.

In conclusion, the quotas adopted respond to the need for this essential resource to recover for the benefit of all concerned, including the Community. Any reduction of catches to that effect will be borne by all ICCAT parties having a quota, and not only by the Community. Furthermore, the internal allocation of the Community quota among Member States results from the translation of previous ICCAT measures in terms of catch limitations, and therefore does not represent a breach of the status quo.

(2001/C 72 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0487/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Comitology

How many meetings fully or partly-funded by the Commission were held in 1998 and 1999 respectively in the following categories:

meetings attended by less than six experts

separate arrangements

joint committees with non-Member States

COST committees?

Please also provide a full list of those participants in meetings who received travel expenses.

Please give the figures for the 385 and 366 committees in 1998 and 1999, and for the 376 and 381 temporary expert working parties in 1998 and 1999.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Honourable Member has raised several questions regarding the number of meetings held in the years 1998 and 1999, which were fully or partly funded by the Commission, in several categories.

With regard to committees and the related working groups, the Commission sent already to the Honourable Member a computer print-out of all committee meetings in 1997 in response to his Written Question P-2282/99 (1). The Commission will add to this the figures for the year 1998, the most recent available at the moment.

As for joint committees with non-Member States and COST committees in the research field, the Commission is currently checking the relevant figures in the policy areas concerned and will send these direct to the Honourable Member as soon as they are available. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/3

Identifying the number of meetings attended by less than six experts and all separate arrangements would require a lengthy and costly case-by-case research that the Commission is unable to undertake at the present time because of other priorities.

The same applies to the request of the Honourable Member to provide a full list of the participants in meetings whose travel expenses were reimbursed. In addition, the names of participants who are not appointed personally as members have to be regarded as personal data within the meaning of Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and 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). Thus, by virtue of Article 7 lit. (a) of the Directive, it is required that the data subject ‘unambiguously gives his or her consent’ to the disclosure of the names. This would require multiple single procedures in order to receive the consent of the several thousands of people participating in these meetings.

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 138. (2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

(2001/C 72 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0539/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Pay of officials of the European Investment Bank (EIB)

The budget of the European Investment Bank (EIB) earmarks around ECU 129 million (ITL 250 billion) for the salaries of just under 1 000 (998, to be exact) employees. This figure includes not only various senior executives who apparently cost the institution around ECU 260 000 (ITL 500 million) per year, but also the administrative rank and file.

Could the Council provide the following information:

1. the composition of the EIB’s management bodies,

2. remuneration and tax treatment (gross and net pay, including additional benefits),

3. the average total emoluments of senior executives (EIB staff),

4. whether it is true that, on the basis of the amount allocated across the board for the remuneration of its c. 1 000 employees, the average cost to the EIB of salaries and other charges comes to ITL 250 million (c. € 130 million) per year per employee, or more than double the European average for bank employees of roughly ITL 100 million per year (less than € 52 000 per annum),

5. whether it is true that members of the EIB’s Management Committee receive a total of ITL 50 million net per month,

6. whether it is true that directors-general receive ITL 40 million per month,

7. whether it is true that salaries are published only up to the level of head of division,

8. whether it is true that certain administrative staff are, for various reasons, in receipt of income of around € 500 000 per annum (around ITL 1 billion) from the bank,

9. whether it would consider providing for a reduction of 30 % in the emoluments in question from 1 January 2000,

10. exactly how much all the administrative staff and other employees of the EIB have been paid in the course of 1998? C 72 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(18/19 September 2000)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that the European Investment Bank, which is provided for in Article 266 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the members of which are the Member States, has legal personality.

The Bank is governed by a Statute, which is the subject of a Protocol annexed to the Treaty. Article 8 of that Protocol provides that the Bank is directed and managed by a Board of Governors, a Board of Directors and a Management Committee. The composition of those bodies is laid down in Articles 9, 11 and 13 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Bank.

The Statute also provides that the officials and other employees of the Bank are under the authority of the President of the Management Committee and are engaged and discharged by him.

The Council therefore invites the Honourable Member to approach the European Investment Bank for the specific information he requests.

(2001/C 72 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0554/00 by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) and Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Hours of work for cockpit crew, air traffic safety and the internal market

On 21 January the Dutch TV programme ‘Netwerk’ was devoted to the hours of work of aircraft cockpit crew: very long periods of fourteen hours or more are not an exception, particularly for charter companies.

Recent research by the Deutsches Institut für Luft- und Raumfahrt (German aerospace institute) in Cologne has shown that excessively long hours of work jeopardise safety. Continuous periods of work longer than ten hours at night and twelve hours during the day cause cockpit crew to become overfatigued and to lose concentration.

Similar research by NASA in the USA confirms these findings and as a result the maximum working hours are set at ten at night and twelve during the day for the entire United States.

The rules applied by the EU Member States differ. The rules in the Netherlands are generous, with a maximum of sixteen hours and an additional one and a half hours for unforeseen circumstances.

Is the Commission familiar with the NASA and DLR research?

Does the Commission agree that given these research findings it would be irresponsible to allow cockpit crew to work longer than the periods recommended by NASA and the DLR?

Does the Commission agree that the proper functioning of the internal market requires that all Member Stares apply the same safety-based hours of work?

Point 5 of the explanatory statement to the Smet report (A5-0041/1999) on amending directive 93/104/ EC (1), concerns certain aspects of the organisation of working time, says that the Commission has promised to submit a proposal for air crew.

Will the Commission also propose taking up the scientific recommendations mentioned above and incorporating them out in the directive? If so, when?

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/5

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

The duration of flight and rest periods of air crew is clearly an element of the safety of air transport and this is the reason why, as recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, Member States have developed national regulatory schemes in this field. The Commission is aware of the fact that such national regulations are not harmonised in the Community and that this might affect the good functioning of the internal market, as well as lower the level of safety of the European air transport. For the reason, the Commission is exploring the possibility of proposing a common regulatory scheme.

In developing this work, the Commission has indeed built on existing scientific knowledge as recommended by the Honourable Members. Therefore note has been taken of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Deutsches Institut für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) studies, as well as of many others carried out in this field over the years. The Commission cannot conclude that working longer than as indicated in the NASA or DLR studies would be necessarily unsafe. These studies do in fact not draw such conclusions, but develop guidelines and best practices for the safe rostering of air crew. It is the Commission’s intention to use the results of these studies for the construction of a reliable method of assessment of the fatigue implications of various possible flight and rest time schemes, so as to assist in the common regulatory process they envisage. A study contract will soon be awarded for the carrying out of this work.

Working hours of air crew are not only an element of operational safety of air transport, referred to above, but also an element of occupational health and safety. Occupational health and safety requirements in respect of working time are covered for many sectors of the economy by Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993, to which the Honourable Members refer. The civil aviation sector, however, is excluded from the application field of this Directive and work is on going to provide workers in this sector with the necessary protection. It is in this context that on 22 March 2000, the social partners in the civil aviation sector concluded the European Agreement on the organisation of working time of mobile staff in civil aviation. Cockpit crew fall within the scope of that agreement which lays down minimum requirements in respect of the organisation of working time of crew members on board civil aircraft. In accordance with Article 139(2) (ex-article 118b) of the EC Treaty, and at the joint request of the signatory parties, it will be possible for the Commission to propose that the agreement be implemented by a Council directive.

(2001/C 72 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0696/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Streamlining procedures for drawing up Court of Auditors’ reports

The European Parliament attaches great importance to up-to-date reporting by the Court of Auditors. The impression has been created that current procedures from conclusion of the audit proceedings as such to the issuing of reports could be streamlined. That applies in particular to European Commission opinions on the Court’s sector letters and the Court’s contradictory draft report procedures.

What options can the Commission envisage for streamlining these procedures? C 72 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2000)

The Commission, like Parliament, attaches great importance to the Court of Auditors’ reports. In fact, their findings have provided an important contribution to the Commission’s current reform programme.

The Financial Regulation (1) provides for a period of ten weeks from emission of the draft report by the Court of auditors to the publication of the final annual or special report. During these ten weeks the replies of the audited institution are included and production of the eleven language versions takes place. The last activity takes just under half of the total time. This regulatory period can prove to be tight, especially when Member States or other third parties have to be consulted prior to answering the Court of auditors’ observations.

The Commission is therefore currently exploring with the Court of Auditors ways in which procedures could be streamlined. So far, three main avenues have been identified: to clarify factual aspects as far as possible at the stage of the preparatory sector letters and implement harmonised and modernised rules for their transmission, to spread the workload of the annual and special reports as evenly as possible throughout the year, and to make full use of the advantages offered by electronic transmission.

The Commission much appreciates the question and the interest of the Honourable Member and looks forward to receiving her valuable input during the forthcoming discussions on this subject in the budget control committee.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2673/1999 of 13 December 1999 amending the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the Communities (OJ L 326, 18.12.1999).

(2001/C 72 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0711/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 March 2000)

Subject: Statements by the British Foreign Secretary on Cyprus

The British Foreign Secretary, Mr Robin Cook, told the House of Commons a few days ago that freedom of movement between the Republic of Cyprus and the occupied northern sector of the island would be restored only if Turkey acceded to the European Union. This statement by Mr Cook met with the justifiable riposte from the Conservative MP Sir David Madel who recalled that the British Government had so far adopted a different position on this matter. He also asked to be informed whether the peaceful reunification of Cyprus now depended on the entry of Turkey into the European Union and whether the British Government was now saying that the northern part of Cyprus was part of Turkey.

Will the Council say whether it shares the position of the British Foreign Secretary on this matter, bearing in mind that this would represent a departure from what had been agreed at Helsinki and from the consistent position of the EU that no third country is entitled to veto the accession of Cyprus? Will it also state clearly whether Mr Cook and the Council take the view that the acceptance of Turkey as a candidate country gives it this right? Will it also say whether it has asked Mr Cook to explain what he meant by this statement and suggested that he might retract it? If so, what was his response?

(26 September 2000)

The Council is in no position to predict, let alone to determine when freedom of movement within the Republic of Cyprus will be restored. In the Council’s view this issue should be resolved in the context of a settlement negotiated on the basis of Resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council, notably through the proximity talks launched in December 1999 in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1250, which the EU continues to support strongly. As the European Council underlined at Helsinki, the EU takes the view that a political settlement will facilitate the accession of Cyprus. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/7

If, however, no settlement has been reached by the completion of accession negotiations, the Council’s decision on accession will be made without the above being a pre-condition. In this the Council will take account of all relevant factors. In the accession process, each candidate country is judged on its own merits on the basis of the same objective criteria, and the accession of one candidate is not dependent on that of any other.

(2001/C 72 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0823/00 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: European school milk measure

A report on an evaluation of the European school milk measure dating from February 1999 (COM(1999) 608) draws the following conclusion: ‘Judged purely against the current, stated documented objectives of the measure that focus principally on maintaining and increasing consumption of milk products and as a surplus disposal tool, the measure has had a marginal positive impact and represents poor value for money in comparison to alternative methods of surplus disposal used. This suggests that the Commission should give serious consideration to withdrawing the measure.’ Despite this, on 10 December 1999 the Commission proposed that the measure should be adjusted rather than withdrawn. The proposal reduces the Community contribution from 95 % to 50 % of the cost. The remainder of the cost is to be borne by Member States. The Commission bases its proposal on Community objectives relating to public health.

1. How can the Commission proposal be reconciled with the subsidiarity principle (Article 5 of the EC Treaty) and with the new Commission’s intention of restricting its work to core responsibilities?

2. What scientifically justified public-health objectives does the Commission proposal pursue, and to what extent do/will the existing and proposed measures really help to attain them?

3. What percentage of the school milk budget is spent on administration? What would the corresponding figure be under the proposed measure?

4. What financial impact will the proposed measure have after the proposed enlargement of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

1. In its proposal of 10 December 1999 (1), the Commission recommends maintaining Community aid for milk distribution in schools, but at a reduced level and part-financed by the Member States. This aid is granted within the framework of the common organisation of the market in the milk and milk products sector and is justified by its direct and indirect impact on milk product consumption. The aid scheme contributes to implementing the CAP and falls therefore within the responsibilities conferred on the Community as such.

2. The Commission recognises that milk distribution in schools also contributes to health and hygiene, food policy and social objectives, but it equally considers, for these very reasons, that Community aid paid out of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), should be supplemented by a national contribution. The evaluation report cited by the Honourable Member looks into the other objectives referred to above and relates them to the context of the school-milk scheme.

3. The budget allocated to the school-milk scheme is intended in its entirety to provide a discount on the sales price of milk products distributed in schools. Management of the scheme is in the hands of national bodies whose running costs are the responsibility of the national authorities. The Commission proposal does not change this situation. C 72 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

4. At this stage, the Commission does not have the data which would enable it to quantify the impact of its proposal in the countries which have applied for membership.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 28.3.2000.

(2001/C 72 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0860/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Fisheries agreement with Mexico

Following the recent signing of the EU-Mexico free trade agreement, the Mexican authorities have expressed great satisfaction at the results obtained, inter alia, in the fisheries sector. Recently, a member of the Mexican government proudly stated that Mexico had extremely extensive fishing grounds and low levels of fish consumption in other words, the opposite to Europe. The same sources state that as Mexico did not, in the agreement, assume any obligation to grant licences to the EU, there is every likelihood of a large increase in exports of Mexican fish to the EU.

What are the provisions on fisheries of the free trade agreement with Mexico? Does it in fact include provision for EU vessels to be licensed to fish in Mexican waters?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

The Decision adopted on 23 March 2000 by the Community-Mexico Joint Council, due to come into force on 1 July, provides for creation of a Community-Mexico free-trade area. Most trade in fishery products accounting for € 74 million and 0,3 % of total trade would be liberalised over a maximum of ten years.

Establishment of the free-trade area will naturally result in more trade, to the benefit of both partners. The specific vulnerabilities of the Community industry have however been taken into account by means of deferred or partial (imposition of quotas) liberalisation for certain products.

The trade agreement has no provisions on fishery resources. Mexico is not therefore obliged to offer fishing licences to Community vessels. Nor does the agreement make entry into force of the trade concessions conditional on existence of a fishery agreement. Thus any increase in Mexican fish exports to the Community would result not from the lack of a fishery agreement but more accurately from the free-trade agreement.

(2001/C 72 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0862/00 by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Commission view on the introduction of advertising into state educational establishments

For several years now, companies have been insinuating themselves into state educational establishments through advertising, sponsorship, brand-names and distance teaching. This practice, which seeks to turn schoolchildren into consumers, is now taking on worrying proportions in France and in a number of other EU countries and is consequently undermining the established principle of equality in state education. All too often, these private companies take advantage of the lack of resources available to teachers to do their work. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/9

As this phenomenon is becoming increasingly widespread and commonplace throughout the Union, I would like to ask the Commission to outline its view on this matter and to reveal whether any legislation to limit the introduction of commerce into state schools is in the pipeline.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The Commission is aware of the importance of the issue raised by the Honourable Member, and of the positive and negative aspects of these commercial practices, as can be seen from the study entitled ‘Marketing in schools’, which was financed by the Commission and has been available on the Internet (1) since late 1998.

Where the use of such practices results in misleading advertising or hidden advertising messages, the provisions of 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 (2) apply.

However, in line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the Commission does not believe that adopting more specific legislation at Community level is the best solution to this problem. The Commission has therefore already contacted the parties concerned, including consumer organisations, to encourage them to start talks on a set of non-binding rules for commercial practices which target children and young people.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/surveys/sur03_en.html. (2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

(2001/C 72 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0947/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Income and social protection of women employed in shellfish harvesting

In Galicia 8 500 women manually harvest shellfish under licence from the Fisheries Ministry of the Galician regional government. The 1993 Fisheries Law of Galicia obliged the women to register for social security purposes with the Régimen Especial del Mar (Maríners’ Special Scheme) as independent self- employed workers. In view of the very low incomes (on average Ptas 300 000 per annum) they earn, there has traditionally been a tacit agreement between the government and the sector under which the workers were not obliged to pay the corresponding social security contributions, which would be in the region of Ptas 168 000 per annum, or 56 % of their total income.

The Galician regional government recently stated that unless the women were able to show evidence that they had joined the Maríners’ Special Scheme (Maríners’ Social Security Institute), their licences would not be renewed. The workers have called for negotiations with the regional and national governments aimed at agreeing contributions based on income earned or amount of time worked (an average of four hours per day for between eight and ten days per month, ten months per year).

What are the Commission’s views on workers being asked to pay 56 % of their income in social security contributions?

Is the Commission aware of other cases in the European Union where workers contribute over 50 % of their income to the social security system?

Could the Commission, at the request of the Member State concerned, provide help to ensure that these women are able to continue working without losing a disproportionate amount of their limited incomes? C 72 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the level of social security contributions is a matter for the Member States alone.

The information available to the Commission on Social Security is contained in the publication ‘Mutual Information System on Social Protection in the Member States of the European Union’ (MISSOC), where details of the various benefits in each Member State may be found. This publication is directly accessible on the Internet at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/missoc98.

The Commission cannot envisage an aid mechanism which would pay a portion of social security contributions. Such a scheme could not be financed from any of the Commission’s budget headings.

(2001/C 72 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0956/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Abandonment of cultivated land

The gradual loss of income which has been affecting nut producers in Catalonia has resulted in an ongoing process of abandonment of cultivation in the countryside of the region, amounting over the 1990s to 39,4 % of all cultivated land. This process of rural dereliction is creating social and economic problems and increasing fire and soil erosion risks.

What measures does the Commission intend to take for repopulation and conversion of production in the rural areas of Catalonia and to ensure that cultivated land is no longer left abandoned? Does the Commission intend to dedicate structural measures to this end?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

The new rural development policy adopted by the Council in June 1999 has become the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. An essential element of the European model of agriculture, it aims by promoting job maintenance and creation to provide a solid and sustainable framework securing the future of rural areas. The main policy foci are a stronger agriculture and forestry sector, greater competitiveness on the part of rural areas, and protection of the environment and rural heritage.

Among the structural measures included in Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1) are aid for afforestation of agricultural land, compensatory allowances in less favoured areas and areas with environmental restrictions, and agri-environmental aid. These should help meet the Honourable Member’s concerns. Agri-environmental measures for the period 1995-1999 presented by Spain and approved under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of protection of the environment and maintenance of the countryside (2) already permitted aid to nut growers on the terms set in the relevant programmes.

As is fully consonant with the subsidiarity principle, it falls to Member States to present their rural development programmes. For non-Objective 1 zones such as Catalonia EAGGF Guarantee aid may be requested for structural action as indicated above. In addition to the action envisaged, programmes must describe the situation in the zone, its specific problems, and the proposed strategy and its priorities. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/11

Spain’s proposed rural development programmes, presented on 30 December 1999, are under examination in the Commission. Early approval is expected.

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

(2001/C 72 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0972/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Aid from Community funds

Over 150 workers at ‘Lisnave Lisbon Naval Shipyards Ltd’ have been waiting for 15 years to be taken on again by this undertaking, having been forcibly dismissed a move which they have never accepted.

It is now reported that ‘Lisnave’ or ‘Gestnave Industrial Services Ltd’, the successor company, received aid from Community funds.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. What Community funds were allocated to these undertakings?

2. In allocating Community funds, was due attention paid to the need to maintain jobs?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

According to information provided by the Portuguese authorities, the undertakings Lisnave Estaleiros Navais S.A. and Gestenave Prestação de Serviços Industriais S.A. (both of which emerged from the restructuring of Lisnave Estaleiros Navais de Lisboa S.A.) received European Social Fund (ESF) funding during the period 1994-1999 for vocational training activities.

Gestenave Prestação de Serviços Industriais S.A. obtained ESF co-financing to the tune of € 5 041 072 under the ‘Vocational Training and Employment’ Operational Programme (OP), for a total of 842 000 hours of training and 1 542 beneficiaries. These beneficiaries were employees and unemployed workers (ex-employees of SODIA). The re-training enabled the unemployed workers to be taken on by Gestenave or other undertakings and enabled others to start up self-employment projects.

Lisnave Estaleiros Navais S.A. obtained co-financing to the tune of € 3 711 295 under the ‘Industry’ Subprogramme (PEDIP II) of the ‘Modernisation of the Economic Fabric’ OP, for a total of 501 000 hours of training and 1 907 beneficiaries. These beneficiaries were employees and young persons without vocational qualifications who were due to replace those workers who had signed up for the early retirement programme included in the restructuring plan. Due to falling orders, Lisnave was not able to give all these young people jobs and has promoted efforts to find work for them in other undertakings in the same sector or in the region. To this end, Lisnave has set up an employment observatory to monitor the employability of these young persons. Although the figures available so far are scanty, they give grounds for optimism. C 72 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Discriminatory provisions in the law on property of a number of applicant countries

On their accession to the European Union the current applicant countries will have a law on property which corresponds to the acquis communautaire. Accordingly, any discriminatory provisions in particular in respect of restitution and privatisation must be regarded as an infringement of Community law.

Hitherto the Commission has not expressed an opinion on the question of the lawfulness of legislation on privatisation, compensation and restitution in countries seeking membership of the European Union. Does the Commission share the views that if it were to publish a white paper on these issues, which affect almost all the candidate countries, this could make for greater legal certainty?

(2001/C 72 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0981/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Discriminatory provisions in the law of property of the Czech Republic

Is it true that, on a recent visit to the Czech Republic, Mr Verheugen, member of the Commission responsible for enlargement, said that the Commission would ensure that the continued existence of certain laws and decrees dating from 1945 and 1946 in the Czech Republic does not have a discriminatory effect in any current or future cases, in particular in the area of restitution?

(2001/C 72 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0982/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Political developments in the law on property of individual applicant countries

Does the Commission believe that the law on the restitution of expropriated property currently valid in the Czech Republic and the draft law on reprivatisation recently adopted by the Polish government are compatible with Community legislation, in particular with regard to the exclusion clauses, notably the provisions on citizenship?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0980/00, E-0981/00 and E-0982/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The EC Treaty states that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership (Article 295 ex Article 222). The Commission thus has no competence for intervening in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

For this reason, the Commission does not foresee publishing a white book on this matter.

For the reasons mentioned above, it is not for the Commission to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/13

(2001/C 72 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1035/00 by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: WTO

A number of developing countries have experienced genuine difficulties in implementing their Uruguay Round commitments. For example, commitments on customs valuation and intellectual property require quick implementing systems that the industrialised nations have been developing over lengthy periods of time and which entail substantial implementation costs.

Will the EU support calls for an extension to the deadline for compliance with these agreements?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2000)

The Trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) Agreement has established minimum rights for rightholders, including in the domain of enforcement mechanisms where the public authorities are directly concerned.

Transitional periods were agreed with a view to enabling all World Trade Organisation (WTO) members to provide the necessary TRIPs compatible legislation. 1 January 2000 was the date by which developing country members and members-in-transition had to comply with their TRIPs Agreement obligations. Least- developed country members can avail themselves of a transitional period until 1 January 2006.

In the specific field of customs, both developed and developing countries are working on simplifying and modernizing customs procedures in order to improve border control and enforcement. The border enforcement provisions of the TRIPs Agreement introduce modern trade facilitating customs techniques, and enable customs to focus resources on increasing detection levels of prohibited or restricted goods, such as intellectual property rights (IPR)-infringing goods.

In order to facilitate the implementation of the TRIPs Agreement, including the border enforcement provisions by developing and least-developed countries, developed countries have been providing technical and financial co-operation. This includes assistance in the preparation of IPR and enforcement laws. It also includes support for reinforcement of national agencies including training of personnel. Developing countries were given the opportunity to request assistance in that respect under the joint initiative of technical co-operation set up by WTO and the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

The Commission’s opinion is that the transitional periods for developing countries should not be extended, as they were an essential element of the Uruguay Round negotiations, but that assistance and international co-operation, within an overall framework of trade facilitation, should be enhanced.

However, unlike the situation in TRIPs, as regards customs valuation there have been many requests for more time to implement. Unlike TRIPs, the valuation agreement, though applicable from 2000, recognises explicitly that some countries may need additional time. The Community has shown flexibility in granting additional time for implementation and is at the forefront of those WTO members offering technical assistance to help developing countries implement the agreement during the additional transitional period. The Community is also taking a flexible and sympathetic approach to other areas where individual countries may have implementation problems such as the Trade related investment measures agreement and the application of Sanitary and phytosanitary measures agreement and have, together with the United States, Japan and Canada, made proposals to the effect that extensions would be granted on a case by case C 72 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

basis where countries put forward an implementation plan, which the Community would where necessary support through assistance.

(2001/C 72 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1047/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Transfer of 3 000 tonnes of anchovies between Portugal and France

The annual scientific report issued by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) recommended adopting drastic measures to guarantee the conservation of certain species, including anchovies, whose breeding rates over the previous two years had proven unsatisfactory, and thus advocated closing the fishing grounds between January and June 2000.

Commissioner Fischler’s proposal to the Council of Ministers on a reduction in TACs and quotas for this species advocated a reduction in the TAC of as much as 85 %. The Council of Ministers ultimately agreed on a figure of 51 % but retained the option of a quota exchange of 3 000 tonnes between Portugal and France, in spite of the alarming data used by the Commission in the report.

Back in 1995 the Council had agreed to authorise a transfer of 5 000 tonnes between these two countries. The Court of Justice rejected a Spanish appeal against that agreement in October 1999.

In view of the grave crisis affecting this stock, the Spanish sector has decided to lodge an appeal with the backing of some of the governments of regions in which the fleets concerned are based.

What view does the Commission take of the appeal which the sector itself has brought before the Court of Justice against the agreement by the Council of Ministers authorising the quota transfer between Portugal and France?

How does it view the suggestion of the scientific committee that, before coastal fishing commences, a committee of experts should conduct a survey on the state of the stock, which would serve as the basis for fixing the annual quota and the total volume of anchovies which may be caught?

Does it not believe that fixing a quota for a six-month period destabilises the sector and prevents it from planning the fishing year properly?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The Commission is of the opinion that the transfer of a part of the quota of anchovy from Portugal to France, in accordance with footnote (2) relative to the stock of anchovy in International Council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) Divisions VIIIc and IXa, in annex ID of Council Regulation (EC) No 2742/ 1999 of 17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required and amending Regulation (EC) No 66/98 (1), is an integral part of the management of the stocks of anchovy, compatible with Community legislation and principles and a good basis to achieve an equitable balance between the needs of the fishing industry from France and from Spain.

As a consequence, the position of the Commission in case T-54/00, Federación de Cofradías de Guipúzcoa against the Council, challenging the aforesaid transfer, has been to issue a request for intervention in support of the Council. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/15

In regard with the suggestion by scientists to assess the stock of anchovy at the beginning of the fishing season, in order to take a mid-year decision on the total allowable catch (TAC), the Commission has already adopted this approach for 2000 and is studying the possibility to adopt it as a management strategy whenever there is a warning that the stock is at risk. Advice has been requested from the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries.

The Commission agrees that the setting up of a provisional TAC, to be reviewed during the year pending scientific assessment, may create difficulties to the fishing industry. For this reason, the Commission intends to reserve such a scheme only for cases of biological danger. In normal circumstances, the traditional approach of an annual TAC will be preferred.

(1) OJ L 341, 31.12.1999.

(2001/C 72 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1049/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: OLAF

Further to the answer given by Mr Kinnock to Written Question E-0262/00 (1), can the Commission:

say whether, since the establishment of UCLAF, the conduct of any member of the UCLAF or OLAF staff has been found to be in breach of Article 28 of the Staff Regulations of officials or of Articles12(2) and 55 of the Conditions of employment of other servants? If so, can the Commission, while maintaining the requisite confidentiality of information, give out the facts and indicate the measures it has taken?

confirm that, in the event of accusations which prove to be defamatory, it will not take direct action against the previous who made the defamatory accusations but, under Article 24, will leave it to the official concerned by the defamatory accusation to defend himself/herself?

Can the Commission also say what measures of assistance it can give under Article 24 to an official concerned by a defamatory accusation? How does the Commission envisage guaranteeing that the holding by a member of the OLAF staff of secret information acquired during the performance of his/her duties and possible trade union activity by that official will not result in ethical conflicts (of powers and responsibilities)?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 48.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2000)

Before engaging a new member of staff the Commission verifies on the basis of appropriate documents submitted by candidates that the basic conditions laid down in Article 28 of the Staff Regulations and in Articles 12(2) and 55 of the Conditions for employment of other servants are met. The Commission has no information which suggest that officials and other servants working for the Unit on Coordination of Fraud prevention (UCLAF) did not comply with these conditions.

Under the terms of the relevant Regulation, the Director of the European anti-fraud office (OLAF) has a similar obligation as appointing authority for OLAF staff. Any breach of the Staff Regulations by OLAF personnel will therefore be treated in the same disciplinary way as illegal behaviour of any Commission official. Although the Director of OLAF has indicated to the Commission that there is no element to his knowledge suggesting that officials or other servants working for OLAF did not comply with the rules mentioned above, he has nevertheless indicated that a disciplinary procedure is under way concerning possible misconduct involving an OLAF official. At this stage, a final decision has not been taken and no further information can therefore be given to the Honourable Member. C 72 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Where there are serious unfounded accusations against the professional integrity of an official, the administration is required under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations to take all necessary steps to restore the good name of the official concerned. In such cases the administration enjoys a wide discretion, subject to review by the Community judicature, regarding the choice of the ways and means of providing the official with assistance. It must refute those allegations and do everything possible to restore the good name of the official concerned. Assistance under Article 24 can therefore take various forms depending on the type of threat or action and the wishes of the victim.

Under Article 17 officials are required to exercise the greatest discretion with regard to all facts and information coming to their knowledge in the course or in connection with the performance of their duties. Secret information acquired by a member of the OLAF staff should therefore not be used for any other purpose than the execution of the tasks conferred to the official.

It is for the Director of the Office to take the necessary organisational measures if he considers that potential ethical conflicts could arise between the duties of an official and his activities in a trade union.

(2001/C 72 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1051/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Minimum landing size for flatfish under EU Regulation 850/98

Annex XII of the new EU Regulation 850/98 (1) has omitted to specify the minimum landing size for various species of flatfish (turbot, brill, lemon sole, witch flounder, flounder and yellowtail flounder), as the previous regulation had done. Will the Commission say:

1. Is this omission accidental, or deliberate?

2. In the latter case, why did it take this step?

3. Does it agree that there should be a minimum landing size for every species of fish destined for consumption, so that the fish are able to spawn at least once, thereby preserving stocks?

4. Is it aware that undersized fish cannot be marketed owing to the lack of flesh?

5. Does it agree therefore that the minimum size for plaice should not be lowered to below 25 cm if it is to qualify as a fish for consumption?

(1) OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 63.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2000)

The omission is deliberate and was agreed by Member States during debate leading to the revision of the technical measures package for the north-east Atlantic as laid down in 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.

The major thrust of the Commission in establishing the revised technical measures package was to improve, wherever possible and to the extent possible, the selectivity of fishing gears with respect to the major fish species in Community waters. With some minor exceptions, the fish species referred to in Annex XII of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 are the species which support the major fisheries. Again to the extent possible, the Commission then attempted to establish minimum landing sizes for these species in relation to the selectivity of the fishing gears used in their capture. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/17

The flatfish species listed by the Honourable Member are not major species. Individuals of these species will be retained by fishing gears deployed primarily to catch the major species. If retained and then returned to the sea, almost all fish, including those listed by the Honorable Member, are either dead or moribund. There is little or no conservation effect to be gained by discarding.

To establish a minimum landing size for each species to ensure that individuals of each species were able to spawn at least once would imply adoption of very large mesh sizes to ensure that individuals of any species are not caught, and therefore killed, until they reach the size of first maturity. To provide the conditions suggested by the Honourable Member for plaice, for example, would require adoption of a mesh size in excess of 130 millimetre (mm). Unfortunately, this mesh size would retain few sole. Plaice are very often caught simultaneously with sole for which the optimum mesh size is 80 mm. If the latter mesh size is used in the mixed plaice and sole fishery, plaice of lengths 17 centimetre (cm) and above will be retained. The size at first maturity is well above 17 cm. There is no satisfactory solution to this problem and to many other similar problems in other mixed fisheries.

‘Undersized’ fish should not be landed but should be discarded into the sea because they are of a length less than that defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98. Where no minimum size is defined, however, any fish may be landed but there is no obligation to do so. If small fish can find no market, then fishermen may discard them. However, if a market can be found it appears preferable to land and sell such fish rather than return them to the sea, dead or moribund.

Many plaice are caught simultaneously with sole in fisheries operating with 80 mm mesh size. Under these conditions, plaice of lengths equal to and greater than 17 cm will be retained. This was the Commission’s basis for its original proposal for a minimum size of 17 cm for plaice. The compromise reached established a minimum size of 22 cm. If, therefore, a minimum size of 25 cm is now established, all plaice of between 17 and 24 cm should be returned to the sea, dead or moribund. This would contribute little or nothing to the conservation of plaice.

It should also be pointed out that there is no qualification of fish as ‘fish for consumption’. With the exception of some conditions relating to herring, fish landed may be used for any purpose.

(2001/C 72 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1052/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: EU Regulation 850/98: monitoring compliance with the provisions laid down in Title III, Article 29 (maximum engine power of 221 kW)

In order to protect flatfish stocks EU Regulation 850/98 (1) makes provision for ‘boxes’ within which the maximum engine power that may be used by fishing vessels is 221 kW. Germanic Lloyd has, however, stated that despite controls on and the sealing of engines, all types of engine and particularly those fitted with electronic injection devices can be manipulated to increase the engine power over the maximum permitted.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Does it consider the controls on engine power to be sufficient, although there are indications that engines can be manipulated, despite being sealed?

2. Does it agree that technical rules (for instance, the number of chains placed in front of the nets) can be monitored more easily and more rapidly and are less open to manipulation and can contribute just as much to conserving stocks? C 72 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

3. How is it monitoring the control measures and with what success and what measures are provided to eliminate shortcomings?

(1) OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 63.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

1. The Commission is fully aware that engine power can be manipulated in numerous ways and that, therefore, control of engine power will probably never be fully sufficient. Nevertheless, legislation setting an upper limit on engine power for beam trawlers is required and is provided by Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (1).

2. Technical rules can, perhaps, be monitored more easily and more rapidly. However, if the limit on engine power were to be completely replaced by such rules, there would be no limit on the size and power of vessels permitted to enter the so-called plaice box. In effect, therefore, the plaice box would cease to exist and hence conservation effects on young place would either be much diluted or negated. The Commission would be willing to consider technical measures such as those suggested by the Honourable Member to be additional to constraints on engine power.

3. It is the responsibility of Member States to monitor and enforce the measures laid down in Community law. Should a Member State find a vessel in contravention of the conditions laid down, it is for that Member State to take the appropriate legal action. It is unfortunate that Member States, in some instances, have not pursued certain possibilities available to them, for example fuel consumption by individual vessels, to check on possible deviations from the legal requirements.

The Commission’s inspectorate has the role of ensuring that Member States fulfil their responsibilities in an appropriate manner. The Commission has conducted a number of investigations into this topic in recent years as a result of which the Commission suspects, but cannot definitively prove, that shortcomings exist. To eliminate these shortcomings it is necessary to consider ways by which engine power may be measured in a consistent manner throughout Member States and also to recall that between Member States there is considerable divergence in legal interpretation of conditions defining engine power.

The Commission is taking steps to promote the development of a European standard on measurement of marine engine power and may subsequently propose making the use of such a standard mandatory by Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.

(2001/C 72 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1093/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Antibiotics in hens’ eggs

In November and December 1999, 32 different packages of eggs were purchased by the Italian ‘Altroconsumo’ consumer magazine from a number of supermarkets in Rome and Milan, and their contents examined. The eggs examined were all classified as category A, meaning that they were intended to be eaten fresh and were supposedly of the highest quality. In nine cases, the presence was detected of sulfonamide and quinoline derivative antibiotics, prohibited in eggs. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/19

Pharmaceuticals are administered to the animals during rearing and to prevent disease. Eggs that are laid during that period or immediately thereafter must of course be destroyed. The same also applies if the treatment is suspended. It is absolutely essential for a necessary transition period to be allowed to lapse to enable the substances administered to pass out of the hens’ systems, a requirement clearly not complied with in these cases. Consumption of eggs contaminated with antibiotics results in certain bacteria becoming more resistant and in human beings adapting to the substances, whereby the effectiveness of antibiotics when used to treat sickness is undermined.

Will the Commission state if it is familiar with this problem and if it proposes to take action to guarantee consumer protection in this connection, thereby protecting the health of European Union citizens?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (9 June 2000)

According to Annex II of Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and products (1), surveillance of antibacterial substances, including sulfonamides and quinolones, must be done in eggs, regardless of whether or not these substances have already been authorised to treat laying hens.

The Commission has not received the Italian national report of results for 1999 on the surveillance programme.

Following the Honourable Member’s question, a request has been addressed to the Italian authorities about this incident and, depending on the reply, appropriate measures will be taken.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(2001/C 72 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1115/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission (11 April 2000)

Subject: Protection of animals during transport

Five reports published by the Commission during 1999 on veterinary missions to various Member States show widespread breaches of Council Directive 91/628/EEC (1) (as amended by Council Directive 95/29/ EC (2)) on the protection of animals during transport.

What steps is the Commission taking to remind Member States that: 1. they should reject route plans which contain no arrangements for sheep and cattle to be unloaded and given food, water and 24 hours rest after travelling for 29 hours; and that 2. ‘basic’ vehicles which fail to comply with Council Regulation 411/98 (3) should not be used to transport animals on journeys exceeding 8 hours.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17. (2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52. (3) OJ L 52, 21.2.1998, p. 8.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (22 May 2000)

The Commission is aware that journeys which are in breach of the provisions of 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 (1) as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 (2) are still taking place in the Community. C 72 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Member States are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement of Community legislation. Commission experts, however, carry out periodic on-the-spot checks to ensure uniform application of the Directive and that the authorities of the Member States are monitoring compliance with the requirements of this Directive.

The approval of improper route plans by the authorities and the use of vehicles which fail to comply with Council Regulation (EC) No 411/98 of 16 February 1998 on additional animal protection standards applicable to road vehicles used for the carriage of livestock on journeys exceeding eight hours (3) are infringements which have been reported by inspection missions of the food and veterinary office (FVO) of the Commission. Infringement proceedings in relation to the protection of animals during transport have been opened against Greece and others are being prepared in relation to some other Member States.

In the meantime, the Commission has recently taken several additional steps to improve various aspects of the protection of animals during transport.

Article 13 of Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC provides for the Commission to submit a report to the Council on the experience acquired by the Member States since the implementation of the Directive, possibly accompanied by proposals. The report will be presented to the Council before June 2000 taking into account all available information and in particular the findings of the FVO missions which the Honourable Member mentioned. The Commission will put forward proposals to amend current legislation to ensure better enforcement in the light of the conclusions of the above- mentioned report.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991. (2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995. (3) OJ L 52, 21.2.1998.

(2001/C 72 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1159/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

Labelling has become a trade policy issue in many different fields including food safety. The Commission is seeking multilateral guidelines on labelling (section 99). It makes sense to use the same labelling rules for imported products as for products produced in the EU.

Will the Commission seek to ensure that multilateral labelling guidelines are at least equivalent to EU rules? If so, has any action already been taken on these lines in an international context? If not, why is the Commission opposed to multilateral labelling guidelines of equivalent value and what alternatives are available to the Commission for applying the same labelling rules to imported food as to food produced in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

The policy of the Commission is that compulsory labelling should be applied equally to both Community products and imports from third countries. Current Community legislation on food labelling already sets general and specific rules applicable to both Community and imported products. To date, these requirements have not been challenged. Nevertheless, there are important factors which should be taken into account in the context of international trade. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/21

Labelling is a broad term which may have several objectives. These include consumer information about contents, methods of production and ingredients, and warnings about certain potential health risks (eg possible presence of allergens). Labelling is covered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) sanitary and phytosanitary agreement where it is related directly to food safety. Otherwise it is covered by the WTO agreement on technical barriers to trade (TBT), or even by the General agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT). The TBT agreement seeks to ensure that technical measures do not impede international trade. Trade-restrictive measures are allowed only if they are aiming at some legitimate objective. Consumer information is not explicitly mentioned in the TBT list so far, but health concerns and prevention of deceptive practices are explicitly mentioned. This does not mean that consumer information could not be considered as a legitimate objective under the TBT agreement because firstly the agreement authorizes labelling when it is used to prevent deceptive practices, and, secondly, because this list of legitimate objectives is not exhaustive.

The Commission wishes to see multilateral discussions with view to obtaining international agreement on these issues. The Codex Alimentarius has established general and specific standards for some categories of products. The Commission takes part in the Codex meetings and, together with the Member States, will continue to use its best endeavours to obtain agreement which meets the Community objectives with respect to the protection of human health and consumer information.

(2001/C 72 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1169/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Subject: Modified cotton seeds

The importation and cultivation of genetically modified seeds is prohibited in the European Union pursuant to Community Directives 90/220 (1) and 98/95 (2). Traditional varieties of cotton seed which also contain modified seeds have reportedly been imported into Greece. According to information from the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA), the competent international body for the certification of seeds, the USA does not certify that the seeds imported from that country are free of genetically modified material.

Given that European legislation prohibits the marketing and use of modified seed, will the Commission say:

1. whether it proposes to ban imports into the EU from the USA and other countries of cotton seeds and other plant seeds for which there is no official certification that they do not contain genetically modified material, and

2. whether the Member States can unilaterally ban imports of seeds pursuant to current Community legislation?

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. (2) OJ L 25, 1.2.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

1. No genetically modified cotton varieties have as yet received authorisation for the placing on the market in the Community under Part C of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. Two applications, concerning the placing on the market of insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant cotton, are currently pending approval in the authorisation procedure under the Directive. C 72 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Under current Community law, the placing on the market, including the import, of seeds consisting of, or containing genetically modified material which has not been authorised in the Community under Council Directive 90/220/EEC or under equivalent product specific Community provisions is prohibited. This applies also to seed lots of conventional varieties, that contain impurities of unauthorized genetically modified material.

As indicated in position 77 of the Annex to the Commission’s white paper on food safety (1), the Commission has the intention to adopt, under the existing Community seed legislation, standards for purity concerning the adventitious presence of genetically modified seeds as well as specific labelling requirements for seeds in respect of genetically modified material. This would ensure that these standards and labelling requirements are integrated in the official seed certification procedure established for seeds produced in the Community in Directive 69/208/EEC for cotton. The same measures would also be included in the seed equivalence regime governing the requirements for seeds imported into the Community, as established on the basis of the same Directive for cotton.

Until such time, the authorities of the Member States, under their general obligation to monitor compliance with Community law, have to assess the risk of the possible presence of unauthorized genetically modified material and, in case of suspicion, to carry out appropriate testing with the aim to intercept contaminated lots and prevent them from being marketed and used.

Under these conditions, the Commission does not propose for the time being to ban imports of seeds only on the grounds that there is no official certification by the exporting country that the seeds do not contain genetically modified material.

2. Member States can, in addition to the mandatory checks required under the relevant Community provisions, unilaterally include any other checks for compliance with Community law in the procedures applicable to imports from third countries and take the appropriate action in case of findings confirming non-compliance with Community law. However, there is no basis for Member States banning unilaterally imports of seeds only on the grounds that there is no official certification by the exporting country of the type referred to in the Honourable Member’s first question.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2001/C 72 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1170/00

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Subject: Milk quota in Portugal

1. The amount of milk collected in Portugal has been rising sharply, particularly in 1999. This increase, and the consequent rise in production, affects specific regions, including the Azores Autonomous Region.

2. There is reason to believe that for 1999/2000, the amount of milk collected will exceed the reference quantity for Portugal, with some operators claiming the surplus could be as much as 100 000 tonnes.

3. Strangely enough, the Portuguese Government did not seek to resolve this problem within the Agenda 2000 CAP negotiations, unlike other governments, given that it was already apparent that Portugal had a major problem with its milk quota. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/23

4. On 13 March 2000, the Private Office of the Secretary of State for Agricultural Markets and Food Quality issued a statement on behalf of the government stating that pursuant to Article 299(2) of the TEU the Commission had been asked, within the framework of the special arrangements for ultra peripheral regions, to increase the milk quota for the Azores Autonomous Region to 125 000 tonnes, without prejudice to the current national quota laid down for Portugal.

Has the Portuguese Government approached the appropriate Commission services with a view to negotiating an increase in the Portuguese quota?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Reports of an overrun of the 1999/2000 Portuguese milk quota, due inter alia to increased production in the Azores, have reached the Commission. It is unlikely however that any precise figure will be available before the time set by the rules for Member States to send the Commission 1999/2000 final figures, i.e. 31 August 2000 at the latest.

The Azores are in a special situation, as the only outermost region to produce surpluses far in excess of their internal consumption that are exported to the mainland, where there is a real risk of intervention buying-in using the Community’s budget resources. All the other outermost regions are net importers and their total production does not reach one twentieth of the Azores’.

In November 1999 and March 2000 the Portuguese Government sent the Commission documents on adjustment of the Poseima arrangements and application of Article 299(2) (formerly 227) of the EC Treaty but these did not discuss milk quotas. The topic was not raised other than on the occasion of contacts with Members of the European Parliament until in early April the Commission received an official request from Portugal for an increase in the quota for the Azores. This is being examined.

(2001/C 72 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1171/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Support for nuclear energy and renewable energies

The Commission is requested to answer the question that was asked (Question E-2635/99 (1)). In particular, the Commission is requested to list in table form the money provided in support each year since the establishment of the Community.

The original wording of the questions was:

1. Can the Commission provide details of all financial support received, firstly, by nuclear energy (including fusion) and, secondly, by renewable energies (solar and wind power) from the relevant budget titles of the general budget of the European Communities since the Communities were established?

2. If not, why not?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 187. C 72 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

As already stated in its answer to PQ E-2635/99 (1) by the Honourable Member, the Commission is able to provide the Honourable Member with the information requested for the period 1990-1999. The information is hereby provided, as requested, broken down by year and presented in tabular form, as shown below.

(€ million)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 JOULE I (Non-nuclear energy) (1) 89,8 26,7 6,6 JOULE II (Non-nuclear energy) (1) 136,4 94,6 26,5 Promotional activities (RES) (1) 24,9 4th Framework PRG (Non-nuclear energy) (1) 313,3 163,5 266,5 260,1 5th Framework PRG (non-nuclear energy) (1) 211,6 (2) Altener I B4-1030 5,0 10,0 13,0 10,2 8,6 Altener II B4-1030 11,0 15,4 Thermie B6-7151 (3) 6,6 35,7 35,0 35,2 46,6 Demonstration (Energy) (3) 30,1 37,4 57,1 30,2 66,9 2nd Framework PRG (nuclear safety/fusion) 242,2 156,8 46,0 3,8 3,3 3rd Framework PRG (fission/fusion) 134,8 222,9 222,3 4th Framework PRG (fission/fusion) 340,1 258,6 197,8 206,4 5th Framework PRG (fission/fusion) 237,8 Transport of radioactive material B4-1020 (4) 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,2 2,0 0,7 0,5 Training (Safeguards) 0,3 0,7 0,9 1,3 1,8 0,1 1,1

(1) Spending on renewable energy sources forms an integral part of the budget heading covering the R&TD programme for non-nuclear i.e. not exclusively renewable, energy forms. Only in 1994 did the ‘research’ budget have a distinct heading not linked to a programme for renewable energy sources. For the period 1995-1998 and for 1999, the figures mentioned include the demonstration part managed by the DG for Energy. (2) Payment of appropriations. (3) The figures provided concern only renewable energy sources (i.e. biomass, geothermal energy, hydroelectricity, solar, wind, renewables in buildings and integration of renewable energies) and only demonstration projects; certain dissemination activities, including the activities of the OPET network relating to renewable sources of energy, are not included in the above figures as these are not classified according to energy source. (4) Including the SURE Programme (1999).

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 187.

(2001/C 72 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1173/00 by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Information society funding in the automotive sector

In view of the restructuring taking place in the West Midlands car industry, as a result of the break up of the Rover Group by BMW, could the Commission please consider providing special funding for 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/25

information society projects to the West Midlands region focusing on activities where jobs could be created for the skilled workforce now facing unemployment?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Support for economic development programmes under the European structural funds will be significant in the West Midlands over the 2000-2006 period. The development of the information society is one of the Commission’s priorities following the e-Europe initiative launched at the Lisbon European Council and permeates many of the European funding initiatives. The Commission will be seeking to ensure that in the next generation of structural funds programmes for the region, the development of the information society is properly taken on board, in line with the e-Europe initiative.

First, a large part of the West Midlands region is eligible for structural fund support under the headings of Objective 2 and Objective 2 Phasing-out. With an allocation of over 850 M€, the West Midlands programme will be the biggest in the United Kingdom under Objective 2 in the 2000-2006 period.

The West Midlands Objective 2 development plan has recently been submitted by the authorities in the Member State to the Commission and identifies the following four priorities: (1) developing a diverse and dynamic business base; (2) creating a learning and skilful region; (3) creating the infrastructure and conditions for growth; (4) regenerating communities. Support for innovation and the development of the information society will be one of the cross-cutting themes of the programme. Within these priorities, the following activities may be envisaged: support for training in the use of and the promotion of information and communications technology; support for high technology SMEs including specialist business support; and start up capital through grants, loans or equity financing. The draft plan underlines the need to create jobs and assesses each of the proposed priorities identified above in terms of the creation of new jobs.

Secondly, the West Midlands will receive a share of the Objective 3 programme worth € 4 500 million in total in the United Kingdom. Together with Objective 2, this funding can be used to support the redeployment of the skilled personnel previously employed in the car industry.

In addition to these amounts, the West Midlands could also receive support for innovative projects including more in the field of the information society. The Commission is currently developing a set of guidelines in relation to these actions.

(2001/C 72 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1174/00 by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Research in the automotive sector

In view of the restructuring taking place in the West Midlands car industry, as a result of the break up of the Rover Group by BMW, could the Commission please indicate:

1. The status of current research projects into new automobile technologies?

2. The possibilities of advancing promising new technologies through a special programme of start-up funding for new enterprises based in the West Midlands?

3. Whether it could make special funding available, in recognition of the severe unemployment problem among skilled automotive technicians resulting from the Rover break-up? C 72 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

1. The Rover Group, since 1992, has participated in 79 European funded research and technological development (RTD) projects. Their participation as a co-ordinator or partner spanned the whole range of automotive research, development and demonstration in areas such as advanced design and manufacturing technologies, information and telecommunication technologies, efficient and renewable energy technologies, skills enhancement and training activities. 30 of these projects are still running.

2. The 5th framework programme for research encourages the exploitation of Community research projects and has only limited means to support start-up funding for new enterprises, mainly through the specific programme ‘Promotion of innovation and encouragement of small and medium sized enterprises (SME) participation’.

The same applies to the third multiannual programme (MAP) for SMEs. This basically involves responding to invitations to tender and calls for expressions of interest which are published in the Official journal and are also available on the Cordis web site.

A further possibility concerns access to certain funds such as the European technology facility (ETF), and ETF Start-up (part of the growth and employment initiative) which are implemented in partnership with, and administered by, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF). In this case Community funds are disbursed via specialised venture capital firms, which function as qualified intermediaries in vetting applicants for financing and then taking equity stakes in the successful candidates on the basis of commercial criteria.

A large part of the West Midlands, including much of Rover’s Longbridge plant, has objective 2 or objective 2 phasing-out status. Accordingly, Community structural funds amounting to some € 850 million will be available to the West Midlands objective 2 area for the period 2000−2006. The negotiations on the objective 2 development plan are about to start and special attention will be paid to the decline in the automotive sector and the need to diversify the economy and create new companies. Under structural funds and in particular through the European regional development fund the following activities in support to SMEs are possible: business support, financing of technology transfers, improvement of access by enterprises to finance and loans, provision of infrastructure and direct aid to investment. The programme will be directed towards the creation of sustainable jobs and the support to the structural adjustment of the region.

3. As regards the issue of severe unemployment among skilled automotive technicians no ‘special or additional funding’ is envisaged in the light of the Rover break-up. In addition to the role of objective 2 outlined above, a considerable amount of European social fund will be available to the West Midlands through objective 3 and can be used to address, amongst other issues, the potential unemployment problems resulting from BMW selling off Rover. The West Midlands will receive a considerable share out of the United Kingdom objective 3 programme worth € 4 500 million. The objective 3 plan is structured according to the five policy fields contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2084/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4255/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European social fund (1). In relation to the Rover case, two policy fields are particularly relevant: policy field a) active labour market policies (one of the strategic objectives of this priority is precisely to reduce (long-term) unemployment through measures targeted at those recently unemployed or threatened by unemployment) and policy field d) adaptability (one of the strategic objectives of this priority is to improve the skills base and adaptability of the employed work force).

Moreover, the Community vocational training action programme Leonardo da Vinci (2nd phase 2000- 2006), supports the lifelong training policies of the Member States. It may provide an opportunity in 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/27

creating the proper training tools and mechanisms (pilot projects) for setting-up training schemes. These may help enhance aptitudes and skills and facilitate a successful reintegration of workers into working life.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(2001/C 72 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1197/00 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: The Consultative Group on International Research

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), established in 1971, is an informal association of fifty-eight public and private sector members that supports a network of sixteen international agricultural research centres. CGIAR’s mission is to contribute to food security and poverty eradication in developing countries through research, partnership, capacity building, and policy support. The CGIAR promotes sustainable agricultural development based on the environmentally sound management of natural resources. The European Commission has been an important long-term provider of financial support to the CGIAR but that funding was suspended in 1999 and the Commission is at present engaged in a review of its future funding support for the CGIAR.

Taking into account this review:

1. Does the Commission recognise the valuable contributions that the international research centres, supported by the Consultative Group on International Research, have made to averting famine and improving rural livelihoods in less developed countries? 2. Is the Commission aware of a recent review of the CGIAR by a distinguished international panel, under the chairmanship of the President of the Earth Council, Maurice Strong, that concluded that the CGIAR represented the ‘best investment in development assistance bar none’?

3. Is the Commission aware that CGIAR is in the process of redefining its programmes to focus more directly on the agricultural and natural resource research needs of the poorest of the poor? 4. Is the Commission aware that the on-the-ground presence of CGIAR scientists in developing countries working in partnership with local scientists gives the CGIAR a unique capacity to provide research support to national research systems and the farmers who depend upon them?

5. Is the Commission aware of the increased commitment of the CGIAR to work on fisheries, livestock, forestry and agroforestry, all of which are areas with great potential benefits for poor people and their environments?

If the Commission is aware of all these facts is the Commission willing to:

6. Fully recognise the unique and invaluable role of the CGIAR in addressing EU development assistance priorities of poverty reduction, better food security and environmental protection in developing countries? 7. Inform the European Parliament when and by what means funding of CGIAR Centres will be resumed? 8. Examine the possibility of increasing the level of this support and ensuring that commitments are made on a multi-year basis?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Commission is a long-standing partner and donor of the Consultative group on international agricultural research (CGIAR) and is actively involved in the development of the system. It is therefore naturally aware of both the CGIAR’s contribution to agricultural research and the recent developments to which the Honourable Member refers. C 72 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Due to its outstanding contribution in support of the basic development objectives (poverty alleviation, food security and sustainable natural resources management), the Commission considers investment in the CGIAR as highly profitable.

While the Commission recognises the important contribution of the CGIAR system in addressing key development objectives, it nevertheless would wish the CGIAR to make progress in the formulation of the system’s broad vision for the period 2005-2010 and the design of structural changes and new partnerships to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.

The Commission, meanwhile, is in the process of defining a coherent strategy in support of agricultural research, taking into account the comparative advantages of the various players, including the CGIAR.

A financing proposal for a three year programme in support of the CGIAR is currently under appraisal. The financial envelope for the first year (2000) amounts to € 20 million.

There is no intention, at this stage, to increase the present funding level. In fact, the Commission plans to maintain the current focus on the CGIAR system with regard to the global level. At the same time the Commission puts a lot of emphasis at the regional and sub-regional levels (where it will continue to assist the national research systems and their regional bodies through regional collaborative research programmes. This second focus proves to be very effective in forging partnerships between the CGIAR and regions.

(2001/C 72 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1199/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Medicines administered to children

Statistics published by the authoritative British Medical Journal show that 67 % of children in general paediatric wards are given at least one prescription for drugs which does not meet the criteria for which the drug was licensed.

According to the ‘Mario Negri’ pharmacological research centre, this percentage can be as high as 86 % in Italy. In view of this, can the Commission say what steps it intends to take or might envisage to tackle this serious problem affecting children?

Can it also say whether any research is planned to improve scientific knowledge, so as to ensure efficiency and safety and a more rational use of drugs administered to children?

Finally, can the Commission say whether it is possible to promote and defend the right of children to be treated with drugs in accordance with ‘evidence-based medicine’?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

The Commission is well aware of the matters the Honourable Member has raised. This is indeed a serious problem, concerning not only children but the whole population.

It is true that in the vast majority of cases, and in most areas of therapy, the medicines administered to children do not exist in a specially adapted pharmaceutical form and have not been the subject of clinical studies geared towards that category of patients. Nor do marketing authorisations make specific mention of administration to children. Yet the fact is that the criteria of efficacy and safety of medicinal products, and their rational use, must also apply to medicines administered to children.

As for the Community research effort, two activities under the ‘Quality of life and management of living resources’ specific programme of the Fifth Framework Programme are intended to ensure that the therapeutic arsenal is used to maximum effect in health care. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/29

The first is a key action concerning the ‘Cell factory’, aiming to promote the enhanced, safe and efficient production of therapeutic substances. The second is an activity of a generic nature designed to evaluate specific therapies in the hospital setting by means of large-scale clinical trials, thereby providing a foundation for using therapies in accordance with evidence-based medicine.

Research projects now under way following calls for proposals in 1999 are looking at the best possible therapeutic approaches to congenital metabolic disorders, congenital muscular dystrophy and rare haematological disorders more specifically affecting children. Unfortunately, the Commission did not receive any research proposals targeted more specifically towards the problem raised by the Honourable Member.

New calls for proposals are due to be launched in October 2000, and again in 2001 and 2002 on the dates published in the work programme. The Commission hopes these will attract research proposals geared towards the improvement, efficacy and rational use of therapies specially designed for children.

(2001/C 72 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1207/00 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Council (27 April 2000)

Subject: Bathing water Directive

On 12 December 1996 the European Parliament gave its opinion at first reading on the Commission’s 1994 proposal for a directive (COM(94) 0036) (1) amending Directive 76/60/EEC (2) on the quality of bathing water.

When may we expect the Council’s common position enabling Parliament to give its opinion at second reading on this matter?

(1) OJ C 112, 22.4.1994, p. 3. (2) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.

Reply (18/19 September 2000)

In July 1998 delegations of Member States indicated their preference for the Commission to work out a new proposal for a Bathing Water Directive given the fact that in the meantime the 1994 Commission proposal is outdated.

The Council has been informed that the Commission has started an intensive consultation and working programme with a view to present a communication by June 2000 which will take into account the comments made by Member States, and all scientific technical and management experts concerned.

(2001/C 72 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1214/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission (14 April 2000)

Subject: Van Buitenen parliamentary questions

How many written questions regarding Van Buitenen’s allegations remain to be answered?

How long have the delays been in each instance?

What accounts for each delay? C 72 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (17 July 2000)

The Commission answers all written questions as quickly and as fully as it can, and devotes considerable resources to doing so.

It has given 2064 answers to written questions this year, in an average reply time of 6 weeks and 1 day. The Commission aims to answer within the deadlines identified by the Parliament (priority questions 3 weeks, other questions 6 weeks) and succeeds in many cases. In 1999 and this year the Commission answered 20 questions from the Honourable Member, of which 12 inside the time allowed by the Parliament. The longest reply time to the Honourable Member was 8 weeks and 2 days.

The Commission is not sure exactly to which questions the Honourable Member is referring, and is not aware that any written questions regarding Mr Van Buitenen’s allegations remained unanswered at the time the Honourable Member asked his question, or remain unanswered now. The Commission has identified six written questions asked on this subject this year preceding the Honourable Member’s question and forwards to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat general copies of these questions and answers, from which it can be seen that half of them were answered inside the deadlines identified by the Parliament.

(2001/C 72 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1240/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission (14 April 2000)

Subject: Situation of the cormorant Phalacrocorax (carbo carbo) in Directive 79/409

The EU Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds included the species Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis among those whose habitat is protected by Annex I. In July 1997 the Commission Directive 97/49/EEC (2) amended Annex I of the Directive 79/409/EEC and the cormorant P. Carbo sinensis was deleted from the list.

Is the Commission planning to delete from Annex I of Directive 79/409/EEC also the cormorant P. carbo carbo?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. (2) OJ L 223, 13.8.1997, p. 9.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (5 June 2000)

The sub-species of Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo carbo is not, and never was, listed in Annex I of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Therefore, the question from the Honourable Member is not applicable.

(2001/C 72 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1243/00 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (14 April 2000)

Subject: Contract awarded by the municipality of Messina for the construction of a tramway funded by the European Union

The municipality of Messina (Italy) has contracted out the construction of a tramway to be financed with European funding worth Lit 148 billion.

There has already been a considerable delay in the envisaged timetable for the work and substantial environmental damage has been and is continuing to be done. For example, more than 3000 trees have been uprooted. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/31

The project was drawn up and financed without an environmental impact assessment and phases of the project have allegedly been paid for without the prescribed checks being carried out.

Can the Commission give details of the whole process of granting funding for this project, in particular the checks carried out when phases of the project are paid for, and specify what amounts are involved?

Answer by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

The multifund operational programme for Sicily for the 1994-1999 programme period includes (measure 3,5) aid for urban rail transport projects. The Region of Sicily applied for proposed part-financing of a tramway at Messina (Gazzi-Annunziata route).

The project is at present under examination by the Commission, which recently asked the regional authorities for additional information covering the aspects of the environmental impact assessment to which the Honourable Member refers.

Following its examination the Commission will decide on financing of the project.

(2001/C 72 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1247/00 by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Abduction of Somali children from the Italian families charged with their custody

In recent years there have been numerous cases of children, mainly of Somalian nationality, who had been entrusted to the custody of Italian families being abducted by their (real or alleged) ‘parents’ and illegally taken to other countries (including various European Union countries).

In some cases it has proved possible to trace the children concerned, but the families to whom they had previously been entrusted encountered considerable problems in seeking to ensure that the rights of such children were protected by the judicial authorities of some Member States of the Union.

There is reason to believe that, in many cases, these minors were not abducted by their real parents but by third parties intent on exploiting them for financial gain.

In particular, many problems have arisen as a result of the fact that in some cases the provisions of the Convention of The Hague on international child abduction have not been fully applied in practice, which has caused difficulties in ascertaining how children are being treated and whether they are in good health, and in exercising the right to visit the children and ensuring that minors are repatriated, as laid down by the Convention. This is due to the tendency of the judicial authorities in some signatory states to consider the merits of the original custody proceedings, in flagrant breach of the spirit of the Convention, which limits the requirement to review the merits of custody arrangements to a few special cases only.

In view of the foregoing:

Would the Commission state what measures the Union institutions intend to adopt to ensure effective judicial cooperation with regard to the custody and international abduction of children?

What measures do the Union institutions intend to adopt to ensure harmonisation of the Member States’ rules on recognition of child custody arrangements?

What measures do the Union institutions intend to adopt to ensure that existing international agreements (including the Convention of the Hague) are fully and effectively applied by the Member States’ authorities? C 72 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2000)

The Commission is not currently planning measures to ensure judicial cooperation with regard to the international abduction of minors.

With regard to the harmonisation of the provisions of the Member States relating to the recognition of child custody arrangements, the Commission’s scoreboard includes measures on mutual recognition in civil matters, including family matters. Moreover, a seminar, to be attended by the Commission, will be held in Paris on 3 and 4 July 2000 in order to discuss mutual recognition. The French Presidency will be giving priority to an initiative to launch a European enforcement order in respect of family matters (visiting rights).

The Commission has no powers top constrain the Member States to apply the Hague Convention in the appropriate manner.

(2001/C 72 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1256/00 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Radioactive bombs in Kosovo

During last eleven weeks of the war in Kosovo, NATO aircraft dropped depleted uranium bombs in quantities amounting to hundreds of kilos of radioactive material.

The bombs, devised as anti-tank weapons, are fairly cheap since depleted uranium is a by-product of other processes. They release a very fine uranium oxide powder (the diameter of each particle is 400 times smaller that that of a grain of sand), which is dispersed over tens of kilometres by the wind or carried in surface water. The radioactivity produced in this way is extremely dangerous if inhaled or ingested as it causes internal contamination. The uranium particles are easily soluble in body fluids and lodge in the victim’s organs, such as kidneys, liver and bones.

People in the contaminated area thus suffer serious damage to their organism, as a result of radiation or direct contamination.

From the experience of the Gulf War, when similar bombs were used and hundreds of US soldiers are still suffering the effects, it has emerged that the most immediate effects on human beings include cancer, leukaemia, miscarriages and congenital malformations and diseases of the liver and nervous system. Then there are the long-term effects on the environment.

Does the Commission:

1. Not consider that it is necessary to adopt measures to ascertain the extent of the radioactive pollution in Kosovo?

2. Not think it should encourage decontamination measures?

3. Not think it should introduce a specific screening programme for high risk groups, such as pregnant women and children?

4. Not consider it necessary to promote an international campaign to ban depleted uranium bombs? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/33

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the replies which it has already given to Oral Questions H-429/99 by Mr Alavanos and H-431/99 by Mr Papayannakis during question time at Parliament’s September 1999 part-session (1) and to Written Question E-1481/99 by Mr Manisco (2).

In response to the first question raised by the Honourable Member, two studies have been carried out to ascertain, inter alia, whether there was radioactive pollution as a result of the use of depleted uranium bombs in Kosovo. The first assessment, financed by the Commission, was a preliminary assessment of the environmental impact of the Kosovo conflict, and was carried out by the Regional environment centre for Central and Eastern Europe. This report is available on their website: www.rec.org. A more detailed assessment was then carried out by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Balkans Task Force the report of which is available on their website: www.grid.unep.ch. Both of these reports concluded that the Kosovo conflict did not cause an environmental catastrophe for the region.

In light of this, it was not felt necessary to introduce measures such as suggested in the next two questions posed by the Honourable Member. Nonetheless, the Commission, through its humanitarian office (ECHO) and through its Task Force Kosovo, now replaced by the Reconstruction Agency, has taken a leading role in the broader international effort to address other identified issues, particularly in the field of water treatment. It is also supporting a regional environmental reconstruction programme, within the framework of the Stability Pact, which will assist in environmental reconstruction throughout the wider Balkans region.

The Commission has not been able to consider the wider issue of whether depleted uranium bombs should be banned because it has no competencies in the field of weapons.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (September 1999). (2) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 2.

(2001/C 72 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1261/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Relocating the Empresa Nacional de Celulosa-Electroquímica del Noroeste (ENCE-ELNOSA) industrial complex, located in the town of Pontevedra on the estuary of the same name in Galicia

The industrial complex comprising the public undertakings ENCE, which produces paper pulp, and Elnosa, which produces chlorine, is located a few hundred yards from the town centre of Pontevedra, on the banks of the estuary of that name, and close to the town and port of Marín. At the present time the complex is a contributory factor to the steady deterioration of the shellfish and fish-rich waters of the estuary, and spoils living conditions in the towns concerned thanks to the air pollution it produces, seriously hindering both towns’ urban development. If the chemical plant did not exist, Pontevedra and Marín would form a single town planning area. The space occupied by the factories and by a vast lagoon into which their waste water is discharged, is on the coast, in one of the most richly endowed natural areas in Galicia.

The industrial complex stands on land held under an administrative concession, which is legally bound to run out in the year 2018, under Article 62(2) of the Spanish law on coastlines. Furthermore, the complex is illegal. In 1989 the threat it represents, and unremitting protests by local people, forced the Galician Government to sign an agreement with ENCE on limits for discharges into the sea, as a pre-condition for using a drainage channel to take the waste waters to the middle of the estuary, and in 1991 the government ruled that Elnosa was to be temporarily closed down. ENCE failed to meet the terms of the agreement signed, with the result that as late as 1998, the Galician Government was still refusing to allow C 72 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

the use of the drainage channel for waste water, while Elnosa continued to discharge mercury, without authorisation and in quantities over the legal limits. Spanish government departments such as the National Institute of Toxicology claim that the waste water from ENCE can be classified as toxic, and may be seriously affecting the environment, and departments of the University of Santiago believe that the mercury levels in the estuary’s shellfish are above the recommended limits of 0,1 ppm.

Given that the complex cannot, in any case, make any economic or industrial projections beyond the year 2018, when the administrative concession of the shoreline land which it occupies runs out, and bearing in mind the much-suffering local population’s opposition to the complex, does the Commission intend to take the requisite steps, having ascertained the economic, social and environmental damage caused and studied the problem in collaboration with the Galician and Spanish administrations, to have Elnosa relocated immediately and to negotiate the relocation of the ENCE installations to a suitable site, according to a strict timetable and in the near future?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, it is not the Commission’s responsibility to relocate companies. However, if it can be demonstrated that the installations in question have infringed Commun- ity environmental law, the Commission could take the necessary steps to ensure compliance. This could include initiation of the infringement proceedings provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

From the information provided by the Honourable Member, it appears that Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1) is not yet mandatorily applicable to the two installations, since the deadline for application of the Directive is October 2007. The case should therefore be studied with reference to the relevant Directives concerning discharges to water and emissions to air.

It should be noted that the Commission has already examined a complaint regarding the possible infringement by the installations in question of several Community Directives concerning air and water pollution. No evidence of infringement could be found and the case was closed at the end of 1999.

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(2001/C 72 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1278/00 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Agriculture flax and hemp

Is the Commission aware that, under its present proposals, between 60 and 80 % of the land on which flax is grown in the UK will not be eligible for aid? This would kill off the UK industry immediately.

And does the Commission accept that innovative markets have recently been developed for short-fibre crops, at a substantial investment cost to the industry, in several Member States, including Wales? If farmers cannot expand their production to supply these new outlets, this investment in rural areas will have been for nothing.

And, lastly, does the Commission accept that there is a blurring of lines between the markets for short- fibre and long-fibre crops, since long-fibre products also compete in the new products market, which means that a differentiated aid rate offers a competitive advantage to long-fibre producers in the same market? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/35

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

The question of eligible land is a general requirement of the arable crops regime that was introduced for environmental reasons as well as to keep production and budgetary expenses under control. As the flax and hemp reform proposal (1) is now being discussed in the Council, as well as in the Parliament and Economic and social committee, the final rules applicable for flax and hemp will depend on the outcome of those discussions.

As far as short fibres are concerned, the proposal does indeed support the development of new markets during a 5 year period through the straw processing aid. In fact, the Community finances do not allow for high subsidies to new products that would only find their market at a very low price. Thus, the right sign is given now to the sector: at the end of the transitional period, these productions will need to be economically viable with the common level of support for arable crops.

Concerning the differentiated aid rate between long and short flax fibres, the proposal takes account of the wide differences in product value and production costs between both products. Considering that long flax fibres used in the textile industry can easily reach prices several times higher than those for short fibres used for other outlets, it seems inappropriate to claim that both products compete in the same market.

(1) OJ C 56 E, 29.2.2000.

(2001/C 72 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1283/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Exporting waste to third countries/Basle Convention

Despite international conventions, there is an increase in exports of (toxic) waste to developing countries. The Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/EEC (1) regulate these cross-border flows of waste. According to UNEP, in 1989 the OECD countries exported one fifth of their waste. UN rapporteur Fatma-Zohra Ksentini says the countries which export most are Australia, the US and EU Member States the Nether- lands, Germany and Britain. She is particularly concerned at the growing tendency to ship toxic waste to developing countries where it is simply dumped.

1. How does the European Union ensure compliance with the Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/ EEC, in particular:

(a) what service, and

(b) how many officials are involved,

(d) where?

2. How much category 1 waste have the fifteen EU Member States exported to third countries since the Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/EEC entered into force (broken down by year, exporting Member States and countries of destination)?

3. How much category 2 waste have the fifteen EU Member States exported to third countries since the Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/EEC entered into force (broken down by year, exporting Member States and countries of destination)? C 72 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

4. How many infringements of the Basle Convention and Regulation 259/93/EEC have there been since they entered into force, in particular:

(a) in which Member States,

(b) to which third countries was the waste shipped,

(d) what substances and quantities were involved (detailed breakdown of type and weight), and

(e) when (chronological breakdown of infringements)?

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.

(18/19 September 2000)

The Honourable Member’s Question is not a matter for the Council. Questions regarding the application of the Basle Convention and Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 are a matter for either the Member States or the Commission, within their respective spheres of responsibility.

(2001/C 72 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1285/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Subsidies to coal and nuclear sectors

Substantial amounts in direct and indirect subsidies are granted in the Community at both EU and national level to the nuclear and coal sectors. A question put to the Commission in that connection on 13 December 1999 was answered wholly inadequately. The Commission moreover severely damages its own credibility when it asserts that the claim that state subsidies have been granted to the nuclear energy sector in the Community has not hitherto been substantiated.

1. Must it consequently be assumed that the Commission or departments of the Commission are insufficiently aware of EU and national assistance programmes and subsidies? Must it consequently be assumed in tabling questions that the Commission may well be unaware of the circumstances to which they relate?

2. An indirect subsidy to nuclear energy exists for example in the form of:

EU support payments for nuclear fusion research and for reactor safety and radiation protection;

national support payments for nuclear fusion research and for reactor safety and radiation protection;

A direct subsidy to nuclear energy exists for example in the form of:

the limitations on liability applicable in the Community to nuclear plant operators, with ceilings on the cover required;

the expenditure in connection with safety checks on nuclear power stations, as required by Euratom;

the options available to nuclear power station operators in the Federal Republic of Germany of constituting reserves (a separate question will be tabled shortly). 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/37

What action has the Commission taken against these and other direct and indirect subsidies and what further action will it take?

If no action has been taken, can the Commission state how soon practical steps will be taken?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

1. The Commission would confirm, with regard to subsidising nuclear power, that when allegations have been made concerning the granting of state support for nuclear-electricity generation within the Community, the plaintiffs have never been able to substantiate their claims. In addition certain provisions of the EC Treaty allow support to be granted or measures having an equivalent impact to be adopted. Where there is a complaint it is necessary, in each instance, to carry out a close examination in order to determine the compatibility of the aid.

2. The examples given by the Honourable Member meet the Commission’s criteria when providing a framework for research assistance, and more particularly state assistance.

The rules applying, at international level, to nuclear civil liability were laid down in the Paris, Brussels and Vienna Conventions on nuclear civil liability. Not all of the Member States have signed these. There can thus not be any of the limitations within them that apply within the Community.

The Commission is unable to identify which safety tests will be funded under the Euratom Treaty.

The obligation on nuclear power plant operators to build up financial reserves in order subsequently to fund operations downstream of the fuel cycle and the decommissioning of facilities represents a method widely used to internalise the external costs of nuclear power. These are sums set aside for future spending requirements which, in principle, do not constitute subsidies. However, the Commission is in the process of investigating a complaint in this area. Moreover, the internal market would benefit from harmonisation here.

In view of the information in its possession the Commission does not see what specific action could be taken on nuclear power other than applying the Community law deriving from the Treaties.

The Commission can only reaffirm the fact that the direct and indirect assistance to the coal industry has been investigated under Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Community rules for state aid to the coal industry (1), a decision based on principles of transparency. It should also be borne in mind that regional assistance aimed at redeploying coalmining areas affected by restructuring is not analysed in this context, but in that of Article 87 (formerly 92) (a) and (c) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.

(2001/C 72 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1289/00 by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Abduction of Somali children from the Italian families charged with their custody

There is reason to believe that, in many cases, these minors were not abducted by their real parents but by third parties intent on exploiting them for financial gain.

In view of the foregoing:

Would the Council state what measures the Union institutions intend to adopt to ensure effective judicial cooperation with regard to the custody and international abduction of children?

What measures do the Union institutions intend to adopt to ensure harmonisation of the Member States’ rules on recognition of child custody arrangements?

What measures do the Union institutions intend to adopt to ensure that existing international agreements (including the Hague Convention) are fully and effectively applied by the Member States’ authorities?

(18/19 September 2000)

The Vienna Action Plan of 3 December 1998 and the conclusions of the Tampere European Council on 15 and 16 October 1999 set broad guidelines guidelines for work in the coming years, in particular in the area of judicial cooperation in civil matters, with a view to establishing an area of freedom, security and justice.

Within these guidelines no work is scheduled to commence on the possibility of custody and international abduction of children before 2004. However, if the Commission or a Member State were to submit a proposal or an initiative, pursuant to the rules in Article 67(1) of the Treaty, the Council would study it most carefully.

Moreover, the Council recently adopted a Regulation, on 29 May 2000, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses. This Regulation lays down rules for civil proceedings relating to parental responsibility for the children of both spouses on the occasion of matrimonial proceedings for the purpose of dissolving or loosening the marriage bond. The Regulation already introduces a degree of harmonisation of Member States’ provisions, in particular on the recognition of rulings made in another Member State.

As for the third question, the Council is aware that the Member States are party to international instruments on child protection, in particular, as rightly pointed out by the Honourable Member, the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction. These are conventions which the Member States have signed and ratified. It is for each of the Member States to apply them fully and effectively in accordance with public international law. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/39

(2001/C 72 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1290/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: The High Authority for Telecommunications

The High Authority for Telecommunications which Italy has set up in Naples in breach of the law and against all common sense was supposed to be a streamlined, anti-bureaucratic, efficient and impartial body. Instead it has proved to be a sprawling bureaucratic body with hundreds of under-worked employees (despite the willingness to work of some employees) who go to ‘work’ in an 18-storey building (in Caltagirone) in the administrative centre in Naples.

Recently and this is but one of many examples the Authority awarded the cleaning contract for the building to a local firm. The contract is worth 712 million lire over two years (nearly one million lire a day).

What can the European Commission do to ensure that Italy wastes less public money, and in particular to ensure that the virtually pointless activities of the Authority for Telecommunications are brought to an end?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The Community’s regulatory package for telecommunications provides for the establishment of national regulatory authorities in the Member States with specific powers and competences in relation to the regulation of the newly liberalised telecommunications market. Responsibility for the implementation of the regulatory package is delegated in large measure to the national regulatory authorities, which play a crucial role in this regard in each Member State. They also make an important contribution towards ensuring the consistent application of the Community’s regulatory package through their input to the licensing and open network provision (ONP) committees, their participation in the high level committee of national administrations and regulatory authorities and, in the case of regulatory bodies which are separate from national ministries, their co-ordination through the independent regulators’ group. These constitute heavy responsibilities which the Commission considers require an appropriate investment in terms of personnel and budgetary resources.

The Commission regularly reports on the implementation of the regulatory package in the Community, including an assessment of the national regulatory authorities (NRA) work. The fifth report on the implementation of the regulatory package (1) gave overall a positive assessment of the functioning of the Italian NRA.

On the other hand, on the basis of the information available to the Commission at that time, the Italian NRA appeared to be significantly understaffed, taking into account the wide range of its responsibilities, which cover audio-visual, telecommunications, and the press. This contributed to delays in reaching decisions.

Each Member State is responsible for the organisation of the national regulatory authority. The Com- mission can not intervene in this respect. The location of the seat of national regulatory authorities remains the responsibility of the Member States, in full respect of the principle of subsidiarity.

(1) COM(1999) 537 final. C 72 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1295/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Driving licences and diabetes

The British Government has interpreted Directive 91/439/EEC (1) in such a way as to require it to ban virtually all people who treat their diabetes with insulin from driving passenger-carrying vehicles and vehicles exceeding 3,5 tonnes in weight.

1. Is the Commission aware if any other Member States have introduced such restrictive measures?

The British Government argues that its policy derives from ‘long-standing expert assessment of the dangers associated with the driving of larger vehicles by insulin-treated diabetics’. However, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee reported in February 2000 that the source of this evidence could not be identified.

2. Is the Commission aware of any evidence which might support the interpretation of the Directive being applied by the British Government?

(1) OJ L 237, 24.1.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (1), stipulates in Annex III point 10 that:

Only in very exceptional cases may driving licences be issued to, or renewed for, applicants or drivers in this group suffering from diabetes mellitus and requiring insulin treatment, and then only where duly justified by authorised medical opinion and subject to regular medical check-ups.

This requires that people with diabetes mellitus should not normally be allowed to drive lorries or buses, as there is a risk that they will suffer from blackouts. If this occurs while the individual concerned is driving such large vehicles, there is an obvious risk of a major accident occurring.

The medical provisions laid dawn in Annex III of the Directive are based on the expert advice of medical experts from across the Community.

As regards the interpretation of the Directive the detailed rules applicable for defining ‘very exceptional cases’ are a matter for each Member State to set as they see fit. However, it is clear that this cannot be interpreted as meaning that all insulin-dependent diabetics may drive lorries or buses.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2001/C 72 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1306/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: The welfare of broiler chickens

The recent report by the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Animal Health & Animal Welfare on ‘The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers)’ concludes that the broiler industry’s determination to achieve fast growth rates leads to many broiler chickens suffering from painful leg disorders and ascites. The Scientific Committee also indicated that the highest acceptable stocking density is around 30 kg/m2 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/41

and that welfare would be improved if stocking densities were below that figure. The committee also concluded that the severe feed restrictions to which broiler breeders are subjected result in unacceptable welfare problems and that the welfare of breeding birds must be improved.

What steps does the Commission plan to take to address the broiler health and welfare problems highlighted by the Scientific Committee’s report?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

The Commission’s responsibilities towards animal protection have increased under the recent amendment of the EC Treaty which requires the European institutions and Member States to consider animal welfare a priority when drawing up agriculture, transport, single market and research policies.

Article 5 of Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (1) provides for the Commission to submit to the Council any proposals which may be necessary for the uniform application of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes and, on the basis of a scientific evaluation, any recommendations made under this Convention and any other appropriate specific rules.

Since the report of the scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare on the welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers) was adopted on 21 March 2000, the Commission now possesses scientific elements on which to prepare specific provisions based on Article 5 of the above mentioned directive. It is the intention of the Commission to consider the problem of the welfare of broilers in the light of the committee’s opinion.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

(2001/C 72 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1308/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Rules for third-country shipments

There are frequent problems in Italy for third-country shipments, in many cases leading to confiscation by the Italian authorities of the haulage firms’ vehicles.

An administrative agreement between Italy and Germany now says that German haulage firms may bring a third-country shipment on to Italian territory if they have the appropriate bilateral permit and have previously been in transit through the home country of the vehicle concerned. But there is no such option for Austrian hauliers, making it impossible for them to complete a third-country shipment on Italian territory (with the exception of ECMT permits).

Can the Commission answer the following:

How can the administrative agreement between Italy and Germany on third-country shipments be compatible with the non-discrimination requirement of Article 1(3), first indent?

By what date may we expect to see non-discriminatory haulage of third-country shipments throughout the EU? In other words, what agreements have been reached and how do negotiations stand on transport agreements between the EU and third countries? C 72 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behaf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

As the Honourable Member rightly points out, third-country road transport relations are still subject to bilateral authorizations when a haulier established in a Member State transports goods between two other states, with at least one of these two other states being a third country.

In fact the relevant Community law, Council Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 of 26 March 1992 on access to the market in the carriage of goods by road within the Community to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States (1), expressly states that pending the conclusion of agreements between the Community and third countries the Regulation shall not affect bilateral agreements governing third country transport relations. These bilateral agreements, however, distinguish by definition between hauliers established in a state party to such an agreement and those that are established in another state.

At present, there are no negotiations taking place between the Community and third countries with a view to the conclusion of road transport agreements replacing completely the bilateral agreements concluded between Member States and third countries.

(1) OJ L 95, 9.4.1992.

(2001/C 72 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1317/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Excessive use of water resources (municipalities of S. Giovanni in Persiceto and Crevalcore)

In the municipalities of S. Giovanni in Persiceto and Crevalcore (province of Bologna, region of Emilia- Romagna, Italy), instances of subsidence have occurred (causing the ground level to sink by about two metres) because of the excessive use of water resources in the area by the Seabo water supply company. As a result, this part of the Bologna plain is becoming one of the most vulnerable areas of the Po Valley as regards flooding, and damage is hence being done both to the economy and to the environment.

Can the Commission therefore state:

whether in this specific case Community laws on environmental protection and citizens’ safety have been breached?

whether there any Community measures designed to prevent subsidence from occurring?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2000)

Existing legislation addresses various aspects of water quality, such as drinking water quality, bathing water quality or performance criteria for waste water treatment plants. There is however no Community water legislation addressing water quantity including abstraction or over-abstraction. The Commission therefore sees at present no legal basis to intervene.

The Parliament and the Council are currently negotiating a water framework directive1. The Parliament finalised its second reading at the February 2000 plenary (1)(2) session. The Parliament/Council conciliation procedure is in progress (the time limit for concluding the procedure is 19 July 2000). 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/43

One of the main elements of this directive is the obligation for Member States to maintain or achieve good quality of groundwater. Such good quality will be defined as good chemical status and good quantitative status, good quantitative status being defined as a balance between available groundwater resources and the long-term annual average rate of abstraction. To ensure achieving this objective every abstraction of groundwater (and surface water) will as a rule be subject to a permit. Failure to achieve or maintain such balance between natural recharge and abstraction will, after adoption of this proposal, be an infringement of Community legislation.

(1) Commission Proposals for a Parliament and Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy Framework Directive (OJ C 184, 17.6.1997, OJ C 16, 20.1.1998 and OJ C 108, 7.4.1998) Council Common Position of 22.10.1999 (OJ C 343, 30.11.1999). (2) Opinion of Parliament of 16.2.2000, not yet published in the Official Journal.

(2001/C 72 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1319/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(3 May 2000)

Subject: European school milk scheme

The Commission is proposing to radically change the school milk scheme. At the moment, the disposal of milk in schools is fully subsidised by the European Union. In future this financing would be halved. The other half of the financing would then have to come from the Member States, but they would be allowed to pass on the costs to milk producers and/or the dairy industry. These sweeping proposals are encountering a great deal of opposition, due in part to the negative consequences for milk consumption.

1. Does the Council endorse the Commission’s arguments for halving aid for the school milk scheme? If not, what is the position of the Council with regard to the financing of the European school milk scheme, and what alternative proposal for financing is being put forward by the Council?

2. Has the Council carried out a detailed study of the impact of the Commission’s proposal on milk consumption in schools? If not, why is that the case, and does the Council intend to carry out a study in view of the probable negative impact on milk consumption? Or if so, what are the anticipated effects, and what conclusions does the Council draw from the results of this research?

3. Does the Council not consider it more advisable to continue to fully subsidise the school milk scheme in view of the health benefits of milk? If not, why does the Council support the Commission’s proposal to halve aid in spite of the health benefits of milk? Or if so, will the Council be proposing that the school milk scheme should be financed on a long-term basis by the European Union?

(18/19 September 2000)

1. In February 1999 the Commission submitted a detailed evaluation report on the impact and operation of the school milk measure at European Union level (subsidised at 95 % by the European Union). On the basis of that report, the Commission initially envisaged discontinuing the measure.

In the context of the price package in June 1999, the Council discussed the report submitted by the Commission in detail, after which it adopted the following statement:

The Ministers for Agriculture take the view that the consumption of milk is of great importance in view of its high nutrition value, particularly for children and young people. They therefore consider appropriate to reflect further on how such consumption can be encouraged in a cost-efficient way taking account of the overall availability of budgetary resources. C 72 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

2. In December 1999 the Commission decided, in light of the above, to revise its original approach, and submitted a proposal for a Regulation aimed at continuing the system on the basis of 50-50 funding by the Community and the Member States.

3. At its meeting on 20 and 21 March 2000 the Council held a wide-ranging policy debate on the Commission proposal, pending the Opinion of the European Parliament; among other things, it emerged from that debate that there are still some very major objections to the funding system proposed by the Commission; in addition, some comments were made on technical questions.

The Council is aware of the political and social importance of the dossier raised by the Honourable Member, and will shortly be resuming its examination of the matter in the light of the Opinion delivered by the European Parliament on 3 May 2000, in which the Parliament declared itself in favour of the Commission proposal, as amended in particular on the point relating to the funding mechanism.

(2001/C 72 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1321/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(3 May 2000)

Subject: Hunger relief in Ethiopia and other African countries

The Cairo summit bringing together the EU and the countries of Africa coincided with an outbreak of hunger that is currently affecting millions of people in the neighbouring continent, especially in Ethiopia. This dramatic state of affairs has already been denounced by the UN and by NGOs and the media.

In Ethiopia, the lives of 2 m people are in jeopardy thanks to the drought and the war with Eritrea. What action is the EU taking to relieve this tragic situation, as a matter of urgency? Will the EU in fact be willing to agree on a humanitarian action, without flinching from the necessary intervention, and pressing Ethiopia and Eritrea to accept means of food distribution that use the most effective channels of communication available?

(26 September 2000)

The Council has repeatedly condemned the senseless outbreak of renewed fighting between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Recalling the responsibility of any government for the welfare of its people, it deplores the fact that against a background of severe food crisis in the region precious resources are being diverted for the conflict. The Council accordingly welcomes the arms embargo on the two countries which was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1298 and would recall its own decision on an arms embargo which has been in force since 15 March 1999.

The Council hopes that the contacts with Ethiopia and Eritrea under OAU auspices which are presently being conducted will bear substantive results and declares the EU’s readiness to support the peace efforts under OAU chairmanship, including through the mission of the EU special representative, Senator SERRI.

The Council confirms EU willingness to continue to provide emergency humanitarian aid carefully targeted to the people most seriously in need in order to avoid any possible diversion of the aid. Such aid is decided following the regulatory procedures in force by the Commission who could provide more detailed information on specific actions undertaken. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/45

(2001/C 72 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1325/00

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 April 2000)

Subject: Industrial animal husbandry

Some developing countries have already adopted industrial farming methods of animal husbandry. Others are likely to do so before long. Such farming is not only detrimental to animal welfare, it also poses serious threats to the environment, human health and poverty alleviation in developing countries.

What steps is the Commission taking to encourage developing countries not to adopt industrial animal production systems? In particular, does the Community ever give financial aid for projects which involve the creation or promotion of industrial animal farming in developing countries?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

The Commission is aware of the potential consequences of livestock sector industrialisation, particularly in peri-urban areas. The livestock sector in developing countries (DCs) is undergoing dramatic changes. Growing population, rising incomes and growing urbanisation are likely to triple demand by 2030, while the world population is expected to double. This rise in demand is expected to produce significant changes in the structure of the livestock industry, as it will require much more intensive forms of production. This in turn will affect natural resources if intensification is not accompanied by an appropriate technological and policy framework. At present, this evolution is largely occurring in a policy and institutional void.

The recently completed multi-donor study ‘interactions between livestock and the environment’ (partially sponsored by the Community) provided a thorough analysis of the principal interactions between livestock and the natural resource base. It concludes that industrialisation of livestock production and processing in many developing countries is worrying for a number of reasons. Firstly industrial livestock production generates substantially lower income than the same volume of output in smallholder farms. Benefits, at production level, accrue to few. Cheap animal protein also favours poor consumers, but the poverty and equity effects, as regards livestock production, are on balance largely negative. For agricultural development, the fact that livestock goes industrial takes away the most important growth stimulus that there could potentially be in smallholder farming areas. However, in the harvest and post-harvest sectors, many new jobs are created in slaughterhouses, dairy plants, food processing and in retailing. Secondly the land- detached nature of industrial livestock production, means units tend to concentrate in peri-urban and urban areas, causing massive and increasing damage to the environment. The nutrient cycling that was previously carried out on-farm is no longer occurring. Nutrients are loaded onto limited space, and very often discharged untreated into open waters. Thirdly a number of diseases are associated with intensification. Many of them pose a threat to human health; industrial and intensive forms of animal production may be a breeding ground for emerging diseases (Nippah, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, Avian Flu), with unknown consequences. Public health is also threatened by other forms of livestock food safety problems, such as those manifested by the recent dioxin scandal in Europe, antibiotic resistance and other residue issues. Finally, the lack of animal welfare legislation (or its enforcement), the concentrated rearing units, inappropriate transport and slaughtering facilities and lack of awareness of animal welfare, are issues that are of increasing concern.

This analysis needs further development to lead to new approaches and tools. For that, the Commission, in the context of the international initiative ‘Livestock, environment and development’ (LEAD), is preparing a study in Asia and Latin America to equip decision-makers with tools for environmentally sustainable and equitable forms of livestock development. The main results expected are firstly comprehensive analysis of C 72 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

the transformation of the livestock sector, secondly specific recommendations to address public good and strategic guidance on research and development with regard to livestock, environment, poverty, equity and animal welfare issues, as well as public health; in particular to design development strategies for the positioning of livestock in the development process for use by research institutions, development agencies, private and public funding institutions, and thirdly use of project outcomes by policy- and decision-makers to be ensured by the Virtual Centre on research and development (integral part of the LEAD-initiative). The Commission has prepared the necessary documents and is now in the process of proposing the study for funding to various internal financial instruments (budget lines ‘Environment’ or ALA-MEDA). It is expected that the study will provide an original and innovative tool to policy- and decision-makers in choosing national priorities and strategies, and to donors to better target their aid.

The Community is not supporting the creation or promotion of industrial animal farming in DCs. It is in many instances private sector led while the Community aims first at helping poor small scale farmers.

(2001/C 72 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1331/00 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Possibility of EU citizens bringing cases of violations of fundamental rights before the Court of Justice

Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam on 1 May 1999, Article 7 (TEU) now provides for a procedure for determining the existence of a failure to respect and protect human rights by a Member State and for penalising such failure.

Can the Commission state whether this procedure can also be invoked by individual citizens with a view to penalising the Member State at fault?

Can an EU citizen bring cases of violations of fundamental rights within a Member State before the European Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, only one third of the Member States or the Commission may present to the Council, meeting at the level of Heads of State or Government, a proposal determining the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1).

Under the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to the Court of Justice (Article 220 (formerly Article 164) et seq.), a private individual does not have any direct means of redress before the Court against acts of the Member States. By contrast, requests for preliminary rulings may or, where appropriate, must be made to the Court under Article 234 (formerly Article 177) of the EC Treaty by national courts, including in disputes where a private individual invokes a breach of fundamental rights as general principles of Community law by a Member State acting within the scope of Community law. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/47

(2001/C 72 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1341/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Closed areas for bottom trawling in the Cantabrian Sea

Fishermen’s associations in Cantabria are concerned at the lack of information on closed areas for bottom trawling. They take the view that closed areas need to be introduced immediately since, according to scientific reports drawn up by the Spanish Institute for Oceanography, failure to adopt measures to protect areas with a high concentration of juveniles could lead to the collapse of the hake stock. The Spanish Secretariat-General for Sea Fishing requested the mandatory Commission report in December 1999.

What is the Commission’s standpoint on the review of specific closed areas for bottom trawling in the north-east Cantabrian?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

The Commission is fully aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member.

The Commission’s scientific, technical and economic committee has reviewed and endorsed the scientific position, and the Spanish authorities have contacted the Commission on this issue.

The Commission is currently in the process of preparing a proposal for an amendment to 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) within which the topic raised by the Honourable Member will be included. It is hoped that the Commission’s proposal will be available before August of this year.

(1) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.

(2001/C 72 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1351/00 by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (4 May 2000)

Subject: Report on radioactive pollution of mineral water by radium 226

According to various reports in the media, there is at present considerable uncertainty amongst the public in Germany concerning high doses of radiation, which are allegedly a health risk, in mineral and table water sold under various brand names because of a high natural occurrence of the isotope radium 226.

1. Is the Commission aware of, or has it carried out, any scientific studies to determine and endeavour to assess the concentration of radioactive substances in food, and in particular to reveal a connection between radiation and an increased risk of cancer?

2. Is the Commission aware that, in contrast to other EU Member States, Germany has no directives or limit values for the concentration of radium 226 in mineral and table water? If so, does the Commission think there is a need to take action in this respect at European level?

3. Is the Commission aware that there are technical means of reducing the content of natural radium 226 in water (filters), but that these may not be used in Germany because of the ‘Mineral and table water regulation’? Does the Commission see the need to work towards European rules for the technical processes involved in extracting and producing mineral water?

4. Would the Commission consider extending the food labelling requirement to include radioactive isotopes? C 72 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2000)

1. Member States have a regular programme for checking levels of radioactivity in the environment, in application of a requirement laid down in Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty. Under Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty the monitoring results are transmitted to the Commission. This includes information on radioactivity in milk, other foodstuffs, surface water and drinking water.

In addition Member States carry out checks on levels of radioactivity in foodstuffs imported from third countries affected by the Chernobyl accident (in application of Council Regulation EEC/737/90 of 22 March 1990 (1), recently extended to March 2010) (2).

The Commission’s Joint research centre (JRC) Environment Institute, Ispra, has been organising since 1991 annual international intercomparison exercises with the Member States’ laboratories providing data under Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty. Amongst others, the exercises covered spring water, mineral water, milk and mixed diet.

The Commission has no information on an observed correlation between levels of radioactivity in foodstuffs and the incidence of cancer.

2. The current drinking water directive, Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (3) which covers bottled water that is not natural mineral water (e.g. table water) does not include any specific provision on radioactivity. The new drinking water directive, Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (4), which should be implemented by 25 December 2003, does include provisions on radioactivity. These provisions remain to be completed (Annexes II and III of the Directive) as foreseen at the adoption of the Directive on 3 November 1998. It is worth noting that this Directive does not apply to mineral waters.

3. The Commission is aware that the level of radium 226 in tap water and bottled water is affected by the water treatment method, e.g. the removal of iron and manganese will also cause partial transfer of radium to sludges.

Specific treatment in view of removing natural radionuclides from water was the subject of research funded by the Commission under the IVth Framework Programme.

It is worth noting that such techniques are rarely applied to mineral waters for which it is considered important to preserve the mineral content of the water.

4. The labelling of mineral waters normally includes natural radioactive elements (uranium, radium).

(1) OJ L 82, 29.3.1990. (2) OJ L 75, 24.3.2000. (3) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980. (4) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

(2001/C 72 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1352/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Spanish olive oil and the EU

The current stagnation of Spanish olive oil exports means that the industry’s producers have been holding a whole series of meetings to assess the situation and find new ways of boosting foreign sales of olive oil from the world’s largest producer. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/49

The producers claim that massive investment in a single brand, so as not to confuse consumers is required, in tandem with a new strategy that will prevent things from going from bad to worse, with production increasing while exports remain static.

Given the Commission’s key role in the common agricultural policy, would it be prepared to commission as detailed and precise a study as possible of the situation with a view to seeking appropriate solutions for the Spanish olive oil industry at this difficult crossroads in its history?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

The Commission does not agree that olive oil exports are in ‘stagnation’. Compared with the same period of the 1998/1999 marketing year Community exports have more than doubled: on 31 March 1999 they stood at 35 648 tonnes but 80 812 tonnes were exported between 1 November 1999 and 31 March 2000.

The type of study requested by the Honourable Member (in this case analysis of the situation and a strategy for the Spanish olive oil industry in the face of an unfavourable export market) is outside the Commission’s competence. The primary purpose of such marketing studies is furtherance of private sector interests and their execution therefore falls to that sector.

(2001/C 72 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1380/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Signing and ratification of the CEDAW and the Optional Protocol

By December 1999 the additional protocol to the UN Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimina- tion Against Women (CEDAW) had been signed by only 23 States, eleven of which are EU Member States. Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom have, however, so far failed to sign it. Does the Council intend to prevail upon these States also to sign this additional protocol as soon as possible so that ratification can go ahead?

Will the Council also take measures to ensure that all the candidate countries sign and ratify this convention together with the additional protocol prior to accession?

(26 September 2000)

The Council has no power to put pressure on the Member States of the European Union to sign instruments of the United Nations rapidly. It does note, however, that the fact that eleven Member States have already ratified a very recent protocol demonstrates the commitment of the Member States of the European Union in this field.

As regards the signing of instruments of the United Nations by applicant countries, inasmuch as these texts are not part of the acquis communautaire, the European Union cannot make the accession of those countries dependent on signing the CEDAW Convention and its additional Protocol.

Finally, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that the Treaty establishing the European Community provides in its Article 13 (ex Article 6a) that the Council, within the limits of its powers and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based, inter alia, on sex. This provision of the Treaty belongs by definition to the common nucleus of legislation that each applicant country will be called upon to incorporate into its national law. C 72 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1381/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Establishment of a Council of Ministers responsible for equality between women and men

The European Parliament has a Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities which is concerned exclusively with women’s issues, and the Commission has a Commissioner responsible for this area.

Does the Council agree that it might be useful to set up a special Council of Ministers for women so that those Member States which do not yet have a ministry for women’s affairs are encouraged to set one up?

(18/19 September 2000)

The Helsinki European Council agreed, in Recommendation No 9 of Annex III to its Conclusions, that the number of Council formations should be reduced in order to improve the coordination and consistency of the Council’s work. It assigned to the General Affairs Council the task of taking the steps necessary to achieve that objective.

On 10 April 2000 the Council, in its General Affairs formation, decided to combine certain formations so that their total number (1) would be limited to 16 in line with the Conclusions of the Helsinki European Council.

The Council recalls that questions concerning equal treatment for men and women are covered by the Council in its Employment and Social Policy (2) formation. Furthermore, the Council considers that taking into account the promotion of equality between men and women in all relevant Union policies further guarantees the achievement of the objective set out in the TEC.

Finally, it is for each Member State to determine its representation on the Council, in accordance with Article 203 of the EC Treaty. It is not, therefore, for the Council to express a view on this question. At the very most, the Helsinki European Council (6 October to 11 December 1999) envisaged that each Member State should keep under permanent review its internal coordination arrangements for EU matters so that they are tailored to ensuring the optimum functioning of the Council’s machinery.

(1) A list of these formations is given in 7039/1/00 REV 1 and will be published in the Official Journal in June 2000. (2) The name of this formation has been changed to reflect the changes to the EC Treaty introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam.

(2001/C 72 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1395/00 by Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2000)

Subject: Investment subsidies for on-site cold stores

Pursuant to the Commission Decision of 22 March 1994 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products (94/173/EC) (1), certain sectors listed in an annex enjoy special priority, while other sectors are excluded from receiving subsidies.

Pursuant to the third indent of point 1.2 in the Annex, ‘investments in cold stores for frozen or deep- frozen products, unless required for the normal operation of processing installations’ are expressly excluded from receiving investment subsidies. It therefore follows that, in the case of what are referred to as on-site cold stores, it is very likely that investment subsidies are actually made available. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/51

Because such investment subsidies exist, it happens in practice that cold stores connected with the processing installations are deliberately constructed with a cold storage capacity which considerably exceeds the basic idea behind and the purpose of the said investment subsidies. This vast surplus storage capacity is then offered to third parties as commercial storage for frozen and deep-frozen products. The subsidies granted enable prices to be kept to a minimum, and that results in a substantial competitive disadvantage for commercial cold stores.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

What steps are planned to eliminate this distortion of competition?

(1) OJ L 79, 23.3.1994, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 May 2000)

The respect of the selection criteria for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products pursuant to Commission Decision 94/173/EC of 22 March 1994 is part of the Commission Decision on the approval of single programming documents for Community structural measures for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products.

The recitals include the following obligation for the Member States: ‘Whereas, during the implementation of the single programming document, the Member State will ensure that the individual projects included therein will conform with the selection criteria for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products currently in force, in application of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 951/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products (1)’.

The implementation of the aid scheme by the Member States includes the examination of the project proposals and the respect of the selection criteria by the authorities in the Member State or region.

If the Commission receives information which demonstrates that the approved conditions to grant aid are not respected, the Commission can take the appropriate measures foreseen in Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 which provides the modalities of the application of Article 88 (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty (2).

(1) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997. (2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(2001/C 72 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1397/00 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission (4 May 2000)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 92/61/EEC in Germany specified types of tyre

The Commission’s original proposal that tyre types be specified as part of the type-approval of motorcycles was not included in Directive 92/61/EEC (1), as the European Parliament considered that the specification of tyre types by vehicle manufacturers in the context of the European type-approval procedure for motorcycles would place tyre manufacturers who had perhaps not been taken into account at a competitive disadvantage.

In Germany, however, it seems that vehicle manufacturers are still managing to specify particular types of tyre in vehicle documentation, even after the Directive’s entry into force, by using vehicle type-testing procedures.

Is the Commission aware of such practices? Does it consider German implementation of the Directive to be at odds with European legislation?

(1) OJ L 225, 10.8.1992, p. 72. C 72 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (16 June 2000)

The legislative provisions governing technical requirements for tyres and their fitting are contained in Directive 97/24/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles (1).

The Commission was informed of tyre brand restrictions attaching to certain passenger cars manufactured in Germany. Following exchanges of correspondence with the Commission, the German authorities addressed a communication dated 29 February 2000 to the Commission in which type-approval authorities have been instructed not to include in the future any such brand restrictions in vehicle documents. The communication also states that any existing brand restrictions contained in vehicle documentation are devoid of legal effect.

The Commission is of the view that tyre brand specifications for motorcycles are similarly unacceptable. The Commission will contact the German authorities in order to clarify the situation.

(1) OJ L 226, 18.8.1997.

(2001/C 72 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1399/00 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (4 May 2000)

Subject: Certificate of Pharmaceutical Products

Can the principles of free trade be reconciled with the concept of exclusive distribution rights, which is an indirect effect of the Certificate of Pharmaceutical Products, particularly in respect of the supply of essential medicines for emerging countries?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (16 June 2000)

The export certificates (‘certificate of pharmaceutical products’) drawn up by the national or Community authorities are based on the WHO (World Health Organisation) model.

Their main aim is to certify that the medicine for which the certificate has been requested is indeed covered by a marketing authorisation granted by the authorities in the exporting country.

That main aim is thus linked to the marketing authorisation and not to the distribution system or to access to the pharmaceuticals market. As such it does not confer any exclusive-distribution right. The certificate constitutes a guarantee and makes pharmaceutical products more accessible in the less-developed import- ing countries.

(2001/C 72 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1400/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission (5 May 2000)

Subject: Safety risks in Spanish mining dams

According to data made available by the WWF environmentalist group, there are at present 743 mining dams in Spain, of which 161 are subject to the risk of an accident similar to that which occurred in Romania in January 2000. On that occasion, the overflow of a tailings dam into a gold mine led to the pollution of the Danube and one of its tributaries. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/53

The Commission has on several occasions expressed justifiable concern over the condition of mining dams in the EU. However, it has also admitted that the detailed information does not exist which would permit the detection of dams with similar problems to that at which the accident occurred in Romania, with a view to preventing future ecological catastrophes.

The Environment Council, meeting in Brussels on 30 March 2000, discussed the matter but does not seem to have adopted measures for the monitoring and closure of mining dams that are liable to overflow or give rise to other forms of accident that would endanger health and the environment.

In the light of the data provided by the WWF concerning the Spanish state, we should also recall the catastrophe which occurred in Aznalcóllar (Andalusia), where a mining dam overflowed, with grave consequences for the Doñana National Park.

Does the Commission intend to undertake a detailed survey in order to determine which mining dams are at risk and in which Member States they are situated?

What concrete proposals and measures does the Commission intend to submit to the Council to ensure that no accidents of the kind that happened in Romania occur in the EU?

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the applicant countries offer adequate guarantees on safety and environmental conservation, in such instances as that of mining dams?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

Following the Aznalcóllar accident, the Commission launched a study on the management of mining waste and the assessment of related environmental risks. In particular, this study should describe the types and the broad regional location of disposal sites that could represent a hazard to human health and the environment. The study will also describe and analyse the specific measures of control in the operation and decommissioning phases of the mining waste disposal sites. The study covers the 15 Member States and, following the recent accident in Baia Mare, Romania, it was extended to cover the candidate countries.

In view of the above accidents, Community legislation on the safe operations of mining installations should be reviewed. As already announced in its communication on promoting sustainable development in the Community non-energy extractive industry (1), the Commission will shortly present a separate communication on these issues, including an action plan.

In terms of industrial risk management, the Seveso II Directive (2) seems to be the most appropriate legislative tool to prevent these accidents. It obliges industrial operators to put into effect safety management systems, including a detailed risk assessment on the basis of possible accident scenarios. However, the current scope of the Directive does not clearly include mining activities and tailing ponds or dams, and it could be reviewed in order to assess how extractive activities could be covered.

Tailing ponds are covered by Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999, on the landfill of waste (3). However, all the issues related to tailing pond management have not been specifically considered in this Directive. On the basis of the results of the above study that will be completed during summer 2000 for the Member States and at the end of 2000 for the candidate countries, the need for a proposal for a new directive specifically focussing on the management of mining waste will be assessed.

Furthermore, it would be possible to produce a special best available technology (BAT) reference document (BREF), as a result of the exchange of information according to Article 16(2) of the IPPC Directive (4), dealing with relevant ore processing activities. The BREF could deal with techniques to reduce ‘everyday’ pollution and with techniques to prevent or mitigate accidents. C 72 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

In addition, the white paper proposing a directive on environmental liability (5) seeks to improve the implementation of key principles such as polluter-pays, prevention and precaution, and of existing Community environmental laws, and also to ensure adequate restoration of the environment. Timely cost-effective investments in prevention measures to avoid damage that would be more costly to repair are likely to pay dividends in the case of operations which have not taken adequate measures.

The applicant countries are obliged to implement Community legislation, known as the ‘acquis communautaire’, before they can join the Union. Any revisions of existing legislation or any new legislation automatically become part of the ‘acquis communautaire’.

(1) COM(2000) 265 final. (2) Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9.12.1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, OJ L 10, 14.1.1997. (3) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999. (4) Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24.9.1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC), OJ L 257, 10.10.1996. (5) COM(2000) 66 final.

(2001/C 72 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1414/00 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 2000)

Subject: Projects involving genetically modified crops in developing countries

Could the Commission clarify its categorisation for projects it supports which involve the growing of genetically modified crops in the African, Caribbean and Pacific states or any other developing countries?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (21 June 2000)

In the context of the Commission’s development cooperation there are no projects undertaken to promote genetically modified crops in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) or any other developing countries.

(2001/C 72 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1417/00 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (5 May 2000)

Subject: Capital investment

Would the Commission list capital investment, since 1988, within each Member State in the following categories: Oil and gas extraction; Manufacturing; Distribution; Hotels and catering; Financial business services; Transport and communications; Private dwellings? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/55

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’ Secretariat. However some clarifications are needed. The national accounts system on which the data are based is ESA 79 and the nomenclature of branches is the general industrial classification of economic activities within the European Communities/classification and nomenclature for input/output (NACE- CLIO).

They show investment (GFCF/gross fixed capital formation) by the economic branches concerned rather than spending on capital goods.

The branches available differ slightly from what was requested: construction makes no distinction between private owners and others, financial services includes only credit and insurance, and transport and communications are often grouped together.

It should also be pointed out that the new national accounts system, ESA 95, has broadened the concept of investment by including certain intangible investments (software and databases, literary or artistic works) expenditure on mineral or oil exploration, regardless of whether or not it is successful, expenditure on software development and civilian and military equipment (buildings, airports, hospitals, vehicles, etc.).

This explains why the figures under ESA 95, which should all have reached Eurostat by September 2000, are up for 1995 by between 3,8 % for Portugal and 17,1 % for Denmark.

(2001/C 72 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1421/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Corruption within the European Commission (return of misappropriated funds)

Can the Commission indicate what progress has been made in recovering BEF 5,5 million against the estate of Mr Berthelot and all misappropriated funds related to the Leonardo project, and is the Commission prepared to make a report to the European Parliament detailing the extent of the misappropriation, the attempts made to prevent discovery and the success in recovering funds?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

In December 1999, the Commission issued two debit notes for a total value of BEF 5,5 million against Mr Berthelot (expiry date 31 January 2000). The notes were contested but the Commission did not accept the arguments put forward by Mr Berthelot’s lawyers. Since Mr Berthelot died in March 2000, a reminder and a formal notice to pay were sent to those entitled under him in March and April 2000 respectively. As no payment was made, the Commission started enforced recovery proceedings.

With regard to the Leonardo da Vinci programme, the Commission identified and recovered the amounts relating to expenditure considered as ineligible during the audit conducted by the office assisting it with programme implementation (Leonardo technical assistance office TAO). At the beginning of February 1999, the Commission notified the Brussels Prosecution Service of four cases linked to the operation of this office for information purposes. The investigation is under way and the Commission has not yet been informed of the results. The Commission has not uncovered any irregularity in the management of projects under the programme checked on the spot by its departments. Moreover, following the checks made by its departments into beneficiaries, the Commission regularly issues recovery orders against beneficiaries in respect of ineligible expenditure amounts. C 72 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

In the course of the discharge procedure, the Commission has already reported to the rapporteur for the discharge for Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control on the situation regarding the Leonardo programme and on the monitoring of activities and rules relating to scientific visitors. The Commission has also transmitted all the reports drawn up by its departments on the matter to the Committee on Budgetary Control.

(2001/C 72 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1424/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Incorporation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union

Does the Commission accept that the wording of Article 6(2) of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union which states that: ‘The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law’ constitutes an incorporation of the aforementioned European Convention into the Consolidated Treaty on European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union to which the Honourable Member refers, requires that fundamental rights be respected as general principles of Community law. The Commission feels that this provision, which raises previous decisions by the Court of Justice to primary law status, does not have the effect of incorporating the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into the consolidated version of the Treaty. The same goes for fundamental rights resulting from common constitutional traditions to which Article 6 also refers.

The Commission would point out that the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which is now being drafted will, in accordance with the mandate given by the Cologne European Council, contain the rights to freedom and equality as well as procedural rights guaranteed by the European Convention.

(2001/C 72 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1425/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Treaty violations

Would the Commission accept that to deprive a European Union citizen of the right to enter freely his or her own country of origin when that country is an EU Member State would constitute a prima facie violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and, therefore, of Article 6 of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/57

(2001/C 72 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1426/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: (Consolidated) Treaty violations

Would the Commission accept that, if a Member State deprived a national of that state or of any other European Union state of the right to enter freely into that Member State, it would constitute a prima facie violation of Articles 39 and 43 of Title III of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community dealing respectively with free movement of persons, services and capital and right of establishment?

(2001/C 72 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1427/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), John Bowis (PPE-DE), Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE), Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), Gianfranco Dell’Alba (TDI), Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE), José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE), Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE), Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN), José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE), Dana Scallon (PPE-DE), Mariotto Segni (UEN), Francesco Speroni (TDI), Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE), Margie Sudre (PPE-DE), Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE), Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) and Jürgen Zimmerling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: The Commission’s role in upholding the Treaties with specific reference to the male descendants of the Houses of Habsburg and Savoy

Can the Commission explain how, given not only the obligation under Article 6 of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union for the Union ‘to respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ but also the provisions under Articles 39 and 43 of Title III of the Consolidation Version of the Treaty establishing the European Community, dealing respectively with the free movement of persons and the right of establishment as well as the obligations of the Commission under Article 211 to ensure that the provisions of that Treaty are applied, the Commission has reached the conclusion (as indicated by Mr Vitorino’s answer to Written Question P-0475/00) (1) that the restrictions placed on the movement of the male descendants of the Houses of Habsburg and Savoy as well as the denial to them of other civil rights as a result of provisions contained in the Austrian and Italian constitutions do ‘not come within the jurisdiction of the Commission’?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 228.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1425/00, E-1426/00 and E-1427/00 given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

The free movement of persons is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Union’s citizens by Community law: Article 18(1) (former Article 8a) confers on the Union’s citizens a general right to free movement outside the sphere of any economic activity. Nevertheless, this Article constitutes an additional legal basis which does not replace the specific legal bases, viz. Articles 39 and 43 (former Articles 48 and 52). At present, the right of residence is governed by the provisions of ten or so directives and regulations which are listed in the second report on citizenship. (1)

The right to free movement is not absolute. It is exercised subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect. Thus the right to move freely can be limited by the Member States, in particular on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (2), while complying with the provisions of Directive 64/221/EEC (3). The Commission would draw the C 72 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Honourable Member’s attention to its communication on the special measures concerning the movement and residence of citizens of the Union which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. (4) The communication analyses the experience gained in applying this Directive, notably in the light of the Court of Justice’s case-law, and formulates recommendations for the Member States. It transpires that the ban on entering the Community is not always in itself a violation of Community law on the free movement of the Union’s citizens.

In any event, any citizen who considers himself harmed by a measure taken against him by a Member State can have recourse to the competent jurisdictions, the national courts being the first guarantor of Community law. The same applies if the person in question claims to be the victim of a violation of the rights recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights. Here, the Commission would point out that it is not the guarantor of compliance with that Convention.

On several occasions, the Court of Justice has recognised that the Commission is not required to start infringement proceedings every time it feels that Community law is being violated but that it has a discretionary power precluding the right of individuals to require it to adopt a particular position (5).

(1) COM(97) 230 final. (2) See Article 39(3), Article 46(1) and Article 55 of the EC Treaty. (3) Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (OJ 56, 4.4.1964). (4) COM(1999) 372 final. (5) Case 87/89 [1990] ECR I 1981.

(2001/C 72 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/00 by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Water fluoridation

Across the European Union individual Member States are taking their own action against artificial water fluoridation. It is understood that Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy have all ceased fluoridation or refused to implement it on the grounds of scientific controversy and health concerns.

What action, if any, is the commission taking to investigate the effects of artificial water fluoridation on human health? What is the Commission’s view on the concerns expressed by other Member States on the adverse effects of fluoridation? Does the Commission plan to introduce any directives on water fluoridation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

Drinking water quality is regulated in the Community by Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (1), which will be replaced by 25 December 2003 by the recently adopted new drinking water Directive 98/83/EC of the Council of 3 November 1998 (2). In both Directives there is a limit concerning the maximum admissible concentration of fluoride in drinking water, regardless of its origin, i.e. naturally present or artificially added. The matter of fluoridation of water supplies lies within the Member States’ responsibility and the Commission is not concerned as long as the maximum limit set out in the Directive is respected. The policy Member States follow on this matter depends on a number of factors taking into account local customs and habits and can be very different from one Member State to the other. Unquestionably, fluoridation is a controversial issue because of the positive or negative effects fluoride might have, depending on the concentration of the substance in the drinking water. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/59

The limit set out in the drinking water Directive is 1,5 milligram per litre (mg/l), which according to the view of the World Health Organisation (WHO) as expressed in its drinking water quality guidelines represents a good balance between the positive and negative effects of fluoride. Positive effects start around 0,5 mg/l up to 2 mg/l. The more the concentration shifts upwards from 2 mg/l the more the risk of negative effects is increased i.e. dental fluorosis or even skeletal fluorosis at very high concentrations.

The Commission is not considering, at present, the revision of the legislation, as the new drinking water Directive has yet to be transposed (by 25 December 2000) and implemented. However, the Commission will examine if there is any new significant evidence since the adoption of the Directive, which can suggest a modification of the current position. In order to have an appropriate update on this matter, the Commission will consult its scientific committee on toxicity ecotoxicity and the environment.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980. (2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

(2001/C 72 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1443/00

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Council

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Article 13 and the intergovernmental conference

The new Article 13 introduced during the revision of the Treaty of Amsterdam clearly marks a step forward, in that it commits the European Union to action to combat discrimination based on sex, ethnic or racial origin, age, disability, religion or belief, or sexual orientation.

That said, it does not enable individuals who suffer discrimination on any of the aforementioned grounds to initiate legal proceedings in national courts.

With the next intergovernmental conference in mind, does the Council intend to give Article 13 direct effect, so that European citizens can invoke it in their national courts?

(18/19 September 2000)

As the Honourable Member is probably aware, the Council has no role in the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States and is therefore unable to comment on work being undertaken by the Conference. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has two observers who are closely involved in the work of the Conference at the preparatory level.

The Presidency would recall that the IGC is currently considering possible Treaty revisions to ensure that the Union’s institutions can continue to work efficiently after enlargement. To date no proposal has been tabled relating to the specific issue raised by the honourable member. C 72 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1448/00 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (PSE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Financial support from DG Trade for Brazilian non-governmental environmental organisations

In 1997 the Commission (DG Trade) concluded contracts with several Brazilian non-governmental environmental organisations pledging them financial support for projects. The NGOs have now been waiting for three years for news and, above all, the financial support. One example is the contract with Ecotropia, reference number BR97/023/B7-6201/04.

Could the Commission reply to the following questions:

1. What are the general aims underlying the support for the projects carried out by the Brazilian NGOs?

2. What has happened thus far? Has an assessment of the support measures been carried out?

3. What is the explanation for the non-provision of financial support?

4. Will the Commission take steps in the near future to comply with its obligations under the contracts?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member is one component project within a large commitment made in 1997 (‘Brazil Package’, B7-6021/97/0542). The package consists of 12 non-governmental organization (NGO) projects, dealing with environmental matters, supported by a central project management unit. Unfortunately the package has not yet been implemented and no contracts have so far been signed with the partner NGOs.

The aims of the projects to be carried out by the partner NGOs in this package are related to the conservation and sustainable use of tropical forests in Brazil through a variety of actions.

The projects have not yet been started and therefore no assessment has been carried out. The Commission has not entered into a contract with any of the partner NGOs, but they were informed that their projects had been accepted for funding. A number of preparatory measures were undertaken, notably a mission to finalise planning of the component projects. The main one is the need to create the legal basis for the project management unit and define implementation procedures because there are no previous similar cases in Brazil. Such procedures are currently under negotiation.

As stated previously, the Commission does not have contractual obligations vis-à-vis the partner NGOs as no contracts have been signed. It is however pursuing all efforts with the Brazilian authorities to unblock the situation.

The delay experienced in the implementation of this project is a serious issue. However this problem should not obscure the fact that four other NGO projects amounting to € 3,9 million have been funded from the tropical forestry budget line in Brazil between 1997 and 1999, and over € 22 million were committed for Brazil from the NGO co-financing line. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/61

(2001/C 72 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1454/00 by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission (10 May 2000)

Subject: Publication of a feasibility study on the establishment of a European structure for health monitoring and evaluation

In the context of the programme of Community action on health monitoring (1997-2001) adopted within the framework for action in the field of health, the fourth recital of European Parliament and Council Decision No 1400/97 (1) provides that ‘it would be desirable to study the feasibility of establishing a permanent structure for the monitoring and evaluation of European Community health data and indicators’.

A group of experts was commissioned to carry out this feasibility study, and delivered its report in September 1997. Does the Commission intend to make the report public at the earliest opportunity, without delaying unnecessarily the establishment of a European health monitoring centre essential to a European policy of health planning and disease prevention in the long term, and in accordance with the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty which are aimed at ensuring a high level of health protection in the EU?

(1) OJ L 193, 22.7.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (13 June 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the experts’ report on the feasibility of a European health monitoring centre will be made public very shortly. The experts met recently in order to take account of certain developments since the publication of the first report.

(2001/C 72 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1464/00 by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (10 May 2000)

Subject: Financial aid to Nantygwyddon landfill site

In the mid 1980’s Rhondda Borough Council, Wales, received a substantial amount of funding from the European Structural Funds to help with the construction of the Nantygwyddon landfill site. This was the first time that a grant had been given to a landfill site in the UK.

Will the Commission provide details of: 1. the amount of European funding which was allocated to the construction of the Nantygwyddon landfill site? 2. any conditions attached to the grant?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (26 June 2000)

According to information received from the British authorities, the Nantygwyddon landfill site was allocated some £ 748 000 structural fund support.

The conditions attached to this grant concerned compliance with the details contained in the original application for funding; publicity actions; compliance with public procurement rules; retention of accounting and similar records; and consistency of ownership of the aided asset. C 72 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1477/00 by Harlem Désir (PSE) and Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Commission position on common organisation of market in bananas

In adopting the Dary report (A5-0093/2000) by a large majority, the European Parliament expressed its opposition to the proposed amendment to the regulation on the common organisation of the market in bananas (Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 (1)) which had been submitted to it by the Commission and which, in order to ensure compliance with World Trade Organisation rulings, would lead to the abandonment, by 2006, of the tariff quota scheme which protects banana producers and, therefore, the economies of, and jobs in, many ACP countries and several of the EU’s outlying regions.

In the light of Parliament’s vote, does the Commission intend to adopt the same position as Parliament and to submit to the latter a fresh proposal which will maintain the EU’s commitments with the ACP countries unbroken, preserve the special nature of EU-ACP cooperation and safeguard the economic future of the outlying regions concerned?

(1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

The Commission reminds the Honourable Members that from the very beginning of discussions in Parliament it had made quite clear the serious difficulties involved in the choice of tariff quota management measures.

Negotiations with the commercial partners in question have not yet led to a mutually satisfactory agreement. As stated in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on common organisation of the market in bananas (1), the Commission will in due time draw up a report on the outcome of negotiations with the partners on the tariff quota system.

The Commission remains fully aware that in this reform of import arrangements it must respect its commitments to both Community growers and the ACP countries.

(1) COM(1999) 582 final.

(2001/C 72 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1479/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Investigation of the energy drink ‘Red Bull’

It has been reported by Denmark’s Veterinary and Foodstuffs Directorate that the Commission has shelved the ‘Red Bull’ case in the light of the conclusion reached by its Scientific Committee on Food when asked to evaluate the use of glucuronolactone, taurine and caffeine in ‘energy drinks’.

The Scientific Committee stated that there was not sufficient information to assess whether it is acceptable in health terms to employ the substances mentioned in the quantities in which they are added to ‘energy drinks’. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/63

Can the Commission state whether it is correct that there is not sufficient information available to assess whether it is acceptable in health terms to add glucuronolactone, taurine and caffeine to ‘energy drinks’? Can it also state whether the ‘Red Bull’ case has been shelved as a result of the conclusion reached by its Scientific Committee on Food?

In case of doubt as to whether the abovementioned additives in the ‘energy drink’ are acceptable in health terms, will it then explain why ‘Red Bull’ is still to be found on the market alongside other beverages?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the reply the Commission gave to Oral Question H-323/00 by Mr Cashman during question time at Parliament’s April 2000 part-session (1) on the same subject. In addition it should be clarified that the Commission has for the time being decided to postpone the infringement proceedings.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (April 2000).

(2001/C 72 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1483/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Reduction of ecopoint quotas

In the transit agreement between Austria and the EU the number of transit authorisations is governed by ecopoints. Besides an automatic annual reduction of these ecopoints, the arrangement also provides for a quota reduction this year because low-emission vehicles enabled more journeys to be undertaken last year. After the economic trend in 1999 led to heavier demand for transport through Austria than provided for in the transit agreement, an additional and thus disproportionate reduction of the ecopoint quota is likely this year.

Experience shows that the number of ecopoints issued is not enough to ensure that the whole of the European business sector is supplied. This situation is further exacerbated by the fact that this year a disproportionately high reduction is having an impact.

Is the Commission aware that a shortage of transit authorisations, i.e. ecopoints, may jeopardise the current economic upturn in Europe?

What does the Commission intend to do in this context to ensure that the European business sector is supplied?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

The Commission is obliged under Article 11(2)(c) of Protocol No 9 of the Act of Accession of Austria (1)to make a proposal to reduce the total number of ecopoints available if the number of transit journeys by lorries through Austria exceeds the 1991 level by more than 8 %. In 1999 the number of journeys exceeded the 1991 level by almost 15 %.

The methodology for calculating the required reduction in ecopoints is clearly laid out in Protocol No 9 and is equivalent to some 300 000 transit journeys. In order to minimise its effect as much as possible, the Commission is seeking to spread the reduction over the remaining 3½ year life of the ecopoint system. By spreading the reduction in this way the reduced possibilities for lorries to transit the Alps via Austria can C 72 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

be met by the railways. In this regard the Commission notes that Germany, Austria and Italy are committed to working together to improve north-south running rail freight services through the rail freight freeways.

In addition, the consequences of a reduced number of ecopoints will, from 2001, be offset in part by the increased possibilities for lorries to transit the Alps via Switzerland as a result of the coming into force of the transport agreement with Switzerland.

The proposal for a Commission regulation was submitted to the management committee for road, rail and combined transport in Austria on 31 May 2000. A vote was taken but there was not the necessary majority in favour of the proposal for its adoption. Thus, in conformity with the rules of procedure laid down in Article 16 of Protocol No 9, the proposal has been referred to the Council for consideration.

(1) OJ C 241, 29.8.1994.

(2001/C 72 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1484/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Competence of European Court of Justice in relation to Article 7 of the EU Treaty

Even although the current ‘bilateral measures’ by Austria’s 14 EU partner states in reaction to the accession to power of the Austrian ÖVP/FPÖ (Austrian People’s Party/Freedom Party of Austria) Federal Government do not constitute a case to which Article 7 of the EU Treaty would apply, the provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty nevertheless have a direct bearing on the legal and political debate on the admissibility and fitness of purpose of those measures.

A comparison of the procedural provisions of Article 7 of the EU Treaty with the provisions governing the exercise of powers laid down in Article 46 of the EU Treaty reveals that a decision resulting in a determination by the Council pursuant to Article 7(1) of the EU Treaty is not subject to review by the European Court of Justice. This means that any Member State against which any such determination is made will, in particular, be denied the right to seek redress before the Court for a possible violation of its right to a hearing as guaranteed by Article 7(1) of the EU Treaty.

How does the Council assess this situation, having regard to the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 6(1) of the EU Treaty as one of the fundamental principles of the Union?

Does the Council see both a need and an opportunity to make good this deficiency of compliance with the rule of law in the course of the current Inter-Governmental Conference on the amendment of the Treaties?

(18/19 September 2000)

The question put by the Honourable Member refers to a possible amendment of the Treaty on European Union. It should be noted that the revision of the treaties falls within the competence of the Intergovern- mental Conference, not of the Council.

As regards the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Council would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to Article 309. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/65

(2001/C 72 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1485/00 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Development of the A6 as an international trunk road from Paris to Prague assistance for the section in the Czech Republic

1. How much financial assistance has the Czech Republic received from the European Union for the development of the motorway from Prague via Pilsen to the Czech-German border at Rozvadov (Waidhaus)?

2. What percentage of the total investment in the development of the motorway has been paid by the European Union in the case of this section?

3. When was the assistance provided?

4. On what grounds was the assistance provided?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

1. The European investment bank (EIB) has provided the Czech Republic with a loan of € 165 million in support of the construction of the section of motorway from Pilsen to the Czech-German border close to Rozvadov. No other Community support has been provided.

2. The EIB loan provided cover for 50 percent of the total investment involved in the project.

3. The loan agreement was signed in 1997.

4. The loan was provided at the request of the Czech governement. The section of motorway concerned is part of Corridor IV and has been identified as a priority investment by the second pan-European Conference on transport in Helsinki in 1997.

(2001/C 72 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1486/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: EU-funded Gay and Lesbian Educational Equity Project Pilot Schools meeting in Oulu, Finland

The promotion of homosexuality in schools is currently a very politically sensitive subject in the UK, with the Labour Government’s recent proposals to abolish Section 28 of the Local Government Act, which prohibits such promotion, facing overwhelming public resistance.

The first meeting of the Gay and Lesbian Educational Equity Project Pilot Schools, which is funded by the Commission, states that one of its aims is the creation of strategies such as ‘curriculum development’ in the Member States. Can the Commission confirm that the GLEE Project will comply fully, with Article 149 of the Treaty and will fully respect the responsibility of Member States for teaching content?

Furthermore, can the Commission also confirm that the GLEE Project will not go beyond its main objective, which is to combat discrimination against homosexuality, and promote views that many parents across the EU may find unacceptable? C 72 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

Drawing up programmes is one of the main activities under Socrates, thus contributing to the achievement of objectives set in Article 149 of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 126), in particular developing the European dimension in education and promoting cooperation between educational establishments. It is explicitly provided for in Decision No 576/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 1998 amending Decision No 819/95/EC establishing the Community action programme Socrates (1) and must be achieved ‘while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organization of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity’.

The objective of the ‘Gay and Lesbian Education Equity’ project is to encourage the equal treatment of homosexuals and lesbians in educational establishments and to combat prejudices and discrimination in future generations. This project was submitted to the 1999 selection board under action 3.1 of the Comenius programme by a partnership of several well-known European universities. Combating all kinds of discrimination in education is one objective of this action. The proposed activities are eligible under this objective, and the application submitted was of a high quality in technical terms. The decision to fund the project was taken in accordance with the selection procedure for action 3.1 and was approved by the Comenius subcommittee.

Projects under action 3.1 are monitored to make sure that the proposed activities are implemented in accordance with the work schedule in the application and that the objectives of the project are achieved.

(1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.

(2001/C 72 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1497/00 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: EU-Switzerland agreement and effects of the fourth motor vehicle directive on that agreement

In the seven sectoral agreements that the European Union is going to conclude with Switzerland wide- ranging rules relating to transport and the free movement of persons will be introduced.

At the same time, in the near future the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the coordination of the Member States’ legislation on motor vehicle liability insurance and modifying Directives 73/239/EEC (1) and 92/49/EEC (2) (fourth motor vehicle liability directive) will be adopted at third reading.

The compromise proposal by the Council and the European Parliament envisages an extension of the scope of this directive to those third countries whose national insurance bureau belongs to the Green Card system.

1. Would the Commission be prepared to include the definitive (or provisional) substance of the directive in the negotiations with Switzerland over the matters left over from the seven agreements, and thus extend the scope of this directive to Switzerland, whose national insurance bureau belongs to the Green Card system?

2. What form would the procedure for implementing this directive in conjunction with Switzerland otherwise take?

(1) OJ L 228, 16.8.1973, p. 3. (2) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 1. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/67

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

The Commission welcomed the formal adoption on 16 May 2000 of Parliament and Council Directive 2000/26/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Directives 73/69/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth Motor Insurance Directive) (1). The Directive is designed to improve the present arrangements for settling claims by individuals who, while staying temporarily in a Member State other than their Member State of residence, suffer loss or injury caused by a vehicle registered and insured in Member State other than the Member State of residence. The aim is to rectify a shortcoming of existing legislation by providing a rapid and pragmatic mechanism, where liability is not contested before the courts, for the insurer of the person causing the accident to compensate the injured party, thereby protecting drivers passing through the country who are involved in an accident.

The new provisions will apply not only to accidents occurring in a Member State but also to accidents involving two Community nationals and occurring in a third country that is a member of the Green Card system, including Switzerland.

After publication of the Directive in the Official Journal, Member States will have twenty-four months in which to transpose it into national law.

It should also be mentioned that the Agreement between the Community and Switzerland on non-life insurance relates only to the freedom of establishment of non-life insurance companies and does not concern motor vehicle insurance. However, the Joint Committee provided for in the Agreement may look into whether Switzerland ought not to apply the provisions of the Fourth Motor Insurance Directive.

(1) Not yet published.

(2001/C 72 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1499/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(15 May 2000)

Subject: Risk posed by NATO warplanes to nuclear power stations in Western Slovakia

NATO aircraft have, according to numerous accounts by the local population, been seen and heard flying over the high-risk nuclear power stations in Western Slovakia.

Any NATO aircraft which came down could be a threat to the nuclear power stations at Jaslovske Bohunice and Mohovce which in all comprise five obsolete USSR-technology WWER 440 reactors, none of them with appropriate secure containment, plus the Jaslovske Bohunice A1 nuclear plant which was damaged in 1977, with unprotected buildings, inadequate stores containing high-level radioactive substances and nuclear waste, 20 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel which cannot be manipulated, and an even higher quantity of spent fuel rods in cooling ponds, which have accumulated since the early Eighties.

Western Slovakia, with these two nuclear power station sites, is being used by NATO military aircraft as a transit and in-flight refuelling zone, and the population of this small poor country is understandably highly alarmed at these dangerous round-the clock flights over the nuclear installations. A disaster at the heart of Europe, which might be even worse than Chernobyl, cannot be ruled out.

What is the Council’s assessment of this grave problem?

What steps has the Council taken to avert this potential catastrophe? C 72 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Reply (26 September 2000)

The Council is not competent to express a view on matters relating to NATO’s activities or their possible consequences such as referred to by the Honourable Member.

(2001/C 72 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1503/00 by Ilka Schröder (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (12 May 2000)

Subject: New round of World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations

The Commission is urging the rapid initiation of a new round of World Trade Organisation negotiations. At the same time, trade agreements are being concluded with particular states and associations of states that involve more trade-related aspects than have already been settled under WTO auspices (in particular public-sector procurement or investment).

By concluding trade agreements with states and associations of states, is the Commission deliberately anticipating future WTO agreements?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (3 July 2000)

The launch of a comprehensive new round of multilateral negotiations is a major current objective of Community trade policy and the Commission is working hard to build a consensus for this in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Among the Community objectives for a new round are the establishment of multilateral rules on investment and competition and clarification of existing multilateral rules that deal with the relationship between trade and other important public policy objectives (relating, for example, to environmental protection, consumer protection or development). These are essential if the WTO is to respond adequately to the challenge of ‘harnessing globalisation’. As the WTO takes all decisions by consensus, the launch of a round, its agenda and the eventual results must be negotiated to the satisfaction of all 136 members of the Organization.

As well as participating in the WTO, the Community is a party to regional trade agreements with many other countries or groups of countries. Negotiations continue with a number of other partners. The fact that provisions of regional agreements may be more ambitious than anything that has yet been agreed at the multilateral level is simply a reflection of the different (bilateral) context in which negotiations for regional agreements take place. For example, a number of the Community’s regional agreements include provisions on competition policy, something that has yet to be brought within the overall WTO framework.

The WTO rules explicitly provide for the existence of regional agreements among members (Article XXIV General agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) and Article V General agreement on trade in services (GATS)) and set out a number of requirements that such agreements should meet. In the view of the Commission, provided these requirements are met, regional trade agreements should be considered to be supportive of the multilateral trading system.

(2001/C 72 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1504/00 by Ilka Schröder (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (12 May 2000)

Subject: Entry into force of EU-Mexico trade agreement

The EU-Mexico trade agreement, signed on 23 March 2000 in Lisbon, is to enter into force on 1 July 2000. In Mexico, presidential elections are to be held on 2 July 2000. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/69

1. Does the Commission consider that fixing the entry into force of the EU-Mexico trade agreement for that date will influence the outcome of the Mexican presidential elections?

2. Was the date of entry into force deliberately fixed so that the agreement would enter into force immediately before the Mexico elections?

3. Will it be possible for the date of entry into force of the EU-Mexico agreement to be postponed to prevent the agreement from being abused by the Mexican party of government as an electioneering ploy?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

1. The Commission considers the presidential elections in Mexico to be an internal matter of Mexico.

2. The rhythm of negotiations and conclusion thereof depends on the possibility of both parties involved to find a mutually satisfactory package, and not on internal political considerations of one of the parties. In the case of Mexico, a rapid entry into force is clearly in the Community’s interest and will allow the Community to swiftly restore the competitiveness of its products on the Mexican market. It should be noted that the internal approval process in the Community depends on the appreciation of the negotiating results by the Council and the Parliament. This internal approval process is bound to pre-set procedures with their own timeframes.

3. As mentioned above the presidential elections are an internal matter for Mexico. The Decision adopted on 23 March 2000 by the Community-Mexico Joint Council, which is based on the interim agreement, provides for the entry into force on 1 July 2000. Since this is a legally binding Decision, the entry into force will take place automatically.

(2001/C 72 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1524/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Residential estate near spoil dump

Can the Commission indicate in general terms how Rule 1 in Annex I to the Directive on the dumping of waste (1999/31/EC (1)) should be interpreted, particularly in view of the possible plans for setting up a dump for hazardous dredged spoil in the Oostvliet polder in the municipality of Leiden, the Netherlands? The neighbouring municipality of Voorschoten intends to build a residential estate 250 metres from the proposed site of the dump.

In the Commission’s view, is it possible to build a residential estate in the immediate vicinity of a hazardous spoil dump?

(1) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Under Annex I Point 1 of Directive 1999/31/EEC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, when choosing a site to construct a landfill, the location must take into consideration requirements relating to the distances from the boundary of the site to residential and recreation areas, waterways, water bodies and other agricultural or urban sites. The landfill can be authorised only if the characteristics of the site with respect to these requirements, or the corrective measurements to be taken, indicate that the landfill does not pose a serious environmental risk. C 72 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

It is up to the Member States to adopt the appropriate regulations to implement these requirements. Directive 1999/31/EC must be transposed into national law by 16 July 2001. The building of residential estates, however, does not fall under the scope of the Directive.

(2001/C 72 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1528/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(5 May 2000)

Subject: The ‘Bosman case’ revision of the EC Treaty and addition of a protocol on professional football or sport in general

The ‘Bosman decision’ (1) has profoundly altered the nature of football in Europe, as the Commission has recognised. That ruling established that Article 39 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 48) prohibits the adoption of any rule by sporting associations (including national associations and UEFA) limiting the use by football teams of professional players who are nationals of other Member States. The richer clubs which generally belong to the small number of countries with richer national markets have thenceforth been able to recruit players who, often even at the apprentice stage, are induced to leave their original clubs in, usually, their home Member State. The result is that football has been divided into a big-capital, big- business branch in a few countries, and a minor branch resigned to losing its best assets to the ever- spiralling financial attraction exerted by the centres of power. This ultra-deregulated free-for-all has led to the actual sports results being largely predetermined beforehand: it is essentially money that wins, not sporting merit in the broader sense. Openness in sport is being jeopardised; so too are the basic principles of sporting competition, as deeply rooted in our societies. Europe itself and its diversity are suffering too. Nonetheless, the Commission, as represented by Commissioner Viviane Reding in her statements to the press, has now suggested that one ‘remedy’ for this problem could be to devise mechanisms to ensure solidarity between rich and poor clubs, and, in particular, to redistribute the colossal sums arising from television rights. These two questions are, however, completely separate. Television rights may legitimately be considered a purely commercial matter, to be dealt with under the general rules; the point at issue, however, is, directly and specifically, the validity of the rules governing a sport as such with respect to the make-up of teams. It is not acceptable for the EC Treaty to intervene in this area, inducing decisions which run counter to the sporting interest. Unfortunately, it seems that the intention is, once again, to reduce the matter to economic and financial criteria alone, at a time when, precisely because of the ever-growing weight of that aspect, sport in general and football in particular are increasingly being emptied of their true character. It is surely up to the EU institutions to resolve this sporting problem, instead of continuing to listen to the language of money alone. The only solution is to revise the EC Treaty by as has already been suggested in several quarters annexing a protocol designed to protect in full any regulations practised by sports authorities where major and specific interests of a particular sport are at stake.

Does the Council endorse the Commission’s position as recently stated? If not, does the Council intend to include these problems, given their considerable social repercussions, in the agenda for the 2000 IGC, with the specific objective of revising the EC Treaty by annexing a specific protocol, as has already been suggested, notably by the current Presidency?

(1) Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociétés de football association and others / Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) / Jean-Marc Bosman 15 December 1995.

(18/19 September 2000)

The Council is well aware of the developments in professional football after the ruling of the Court of Justice in the ‘Bosman case’.

The Council has not, however, taken any position on these developments and has not received any proposals from the Commission with a view to regulating the issue described in the question. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/71

As regards the Intergovernmental Conference, the agenda, as established at present, does not include the revision of the EC Treaty in respect of sport in the way suggested in the question or otherwise. As the Honourable Member is probably aware, the Council has no role in the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States and is therefore unable to comment on work being undertaken by the Conference.

(2001/C 72 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1543/00 by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Progress on the horizontal plan for the development of rural areas

Finland’s horizontal plan for rural development was forwarded to the Commission at the end of October1999. The programme contains plans relating to environmental subsidies for agriculture and aid to less favoured areas (LFAs). The Finnish programme should have been the first to be considered. The problems which had arisen were resolved and all the necessary clarifications and additional information had been forwarded in time. The horizontal plan for rural development was to have been discussed at the meeting of the STAR committee on 29 March. However, this discussion was postponed to the meeting on 26/27 April. The Commission has now sent Finland a new notification stating that it will not be possible for STAR to consider the plan until May.

The Finnish Agriculture and Forestry Ministry has confirmed that the last date for applying for a subsidy in respect of Spring 2000 is 26 May. No later than that date farmers will have to commit themselves for five years to new environmental and LFA aid schemes. Specialised contracts for the commitment of environmental subsidies were due to have been finalised on 24 April.

The farmers have been put in an impossible position.

1. What does the Commission intend to do about this?

2. Can the farmers alter their commitment to aid schemes after the Commission and national decisions have been made and notified to the farmers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

The Finnish horizontal rural development plan was foreseen to be presented to the committee on agricultural structures and rural development (STAR-committee) on 29 March 2000. However, due to some pending problems of the Finnish action plan under the Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 Decem- ber 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1), the point was withdrawn to ensure further clarification of the situation. The April 2000 meeting of the STAR-committee was partially cancelled as the committee on the development and conversion of regions acted as STAR-committee dealing only with objective 1 issues. Therefore, the Finnish plan was on the agenda of the STAR-committee on 24 May 2000 when a favourable opinion was given. The final step on the approval procedure will be the Commission decision.

Agri-environmental support can be granted to farmers who give commitments for at least five years. However, Member States may provide for adjustment of commitments during the period of operation, provided that: the approved programme includes the scope for such adjustment, and the adjustment is duly justified, having regard to the objectives of the undertaking.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991. C 72 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/085) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1544/00 by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Economic and monetary policies

The continuing decline of the euro against the dollar is causing serious anxiety for Europeans in a great many walks of life. People in various quarters including political, economic, social, and financial circles are calling for detailed explanations of the EU’s economic and monetary strategy, but the Commission is churning out a spate of reassuring messages and the Council is ignoring the problem altogether. The ECB just keeps raising the rates time after time, clearly demonstrating that it has no economic and monetary strategy, since it is resorting to standard technical shifts divorced from a broad economic perspective. Although the rate increases reduce the risk of inflation, they are undoubtedly discouraging firms from using the euro for their corporate investment. This money is absolutely essential to help speed up economic modernisation and solve the problem of mass unemployment in Europe, which certainly cannot be termed a cyclical phenomenon, but rather results from the numerous forms of structural inflexibility and the failure of the Member States to harmonise their economic, financial, fiscal, and social policies. The philosophy underlying these policies to date has been one of scepticism, protectionism, short-sightedness, and ideological archaism, preventing calm debate aimed at achieving competitiveness on the world market.

Can the Council inform:

What are the main lines of the economic and monetary strategy that the Council intends to implement?

Which European political authority determines EU economic and monetary policy, without encroach- ing on the technical and operational independence of the ECB?

What measures will be taken in the EU and the Member States to modernise and develop the European economy?

How will Europe’s huge unemployment problem be resolved without undermining or departing from the rules governing migration and residence of non-Community nationals?

What role does the Council think the applicant countries should play in bringing about enlargement under, it is to be hoped, the most favourable conditions and as quickly as possible in an EU offering a propitious economic climate and a sense of security and stability as it seeks to improve the quality of life for European citizens?

What proposals will the Council make to the United States, Canada, Japan, Russia, China, and all world economic powers with a view to opening negotiations aimed at stabilising the financial and money markets and shielding citizens, investors, and savers from the dangers of possibly fatal crashes that could even jeopardise global civil society?

(26 September 2000)

In the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community for 1999/ 2000, adopted by the Council on 12 July 1999 (1), the Council underlined that strong, sustainable growth and employment constitute the main priority and that growth and stability-oriented macroeconomic policies and comprehensive and co-ordinated economic reforms are the main means.

Furthermore, although the Council itself has not taken a position on the recent developments of the external value of the euro, it may be pointed out that the Euro 11 group, on 8 May, issued the following statement:

The Euro 11 Ministers and Commissioner, and the President of the ECB share the view that growth is very robust in the euro area; an increasing number of jobs is being created. The ECB is committed to ensure that this growth will remain non-inflationary. Ministers are determined to speed up ongoing fiscal consolidation and structural reforms towards a knowledge-based, full-employment economy 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/73

according to the orientations set by the special European Council in Lisbon, thus increasing the growth potential of our economies.

In this context, we share a common concern about the present level of the euro which does not reflect the strong economic fundamentals of the euro area.

(1) OJ L 217, 17.08.1999, p. 34.

(2001/C 72 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1545/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Amendments to the Netherlands Exceptional Medical Expenses Act and freedom of movement of persons in the EU

The answer to Written Question P-0706/00 (1) does not indicate clearly whether the amendment to the Netherlands Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ) is a violation of the free movement of persons within the Union. In the Netherlands everyone is covered by the provisions of the AWBZ. However, with effect from 1 January 29000 Netherlands nationals living in other EU Member States are no longer covered by the provisions of the AWBZ.

Does the decision by the Netherlands government to exclude Netherlands nationals resident overseas from the provisions of the AWBZ, with effect from 1 January, violate the basic European principle of the free movement of persons within the EU? If so, what action will the Commission take to ensured that the AWBZ is brought back in line with the basic European principle of the free movement of persons within the EU? If not, what are the Commission’s (legal) arguments for stating that the Netherlands AWBZ is fully in accord with the basic European principle of the free movement of persons within the EU?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 207.

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that the right of residence in another Member State of Netherlands nationals who reside or wish to reside there without working (pensioners, students or other non-active persons), which, pursuant to Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (1), Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity (1) and Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students (2), is contingent on their having health insurance covering all the risks in the Member State, is not called into question because the abolition planned by the Netherlands legislation concerns exceptional medical expenses, which are not covered in several Member States. Furthermore, as these persons are exempt from the payment of contributions for exceptional medical expenses, they may, if they so desire, take out additional insurance (of a private or other kind) in the Member State in order to cover these exceptional medical expenses, by paying as insurance premiums the contributions that were previously paid to the Netherlands social security scheme. It follows that the amendment to the Netherlands legislation in question does not constitute a violation of the freedom of movement of non-active Netherlands nationals.

(1) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990. (2) OJ L 317, 18.12.1993. C 72 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1546/00 by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Turkey’s human rights record and membership of the EU

I am concerned with the human rights record of the Turkish Government. In a recent report, I read that Members of the European Parliament from across the political spectrum were disappointed at the lack of progress made by Turkey in the fields of human rights, minority rights, and the rule of law’. Mr Morillon, a French MEP, said in a recent debate that it was ‘not clear whether Turkey would eventually be a member of the EU or not … Turkey would need profound changes in its government and attitude’.

Will the Commission please indicate the criteria regarding human rights, minority rights and the rule of law for countries wishing to join the European Union?

Is Turkey’s application being deferred because of its relatively poor human rights record?

Does the European Commission have concerns about the human rights record of any of the other twelve applicant countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Heads of State and Government of the Union, meeting at the European Council in Copenhagen, in June 1993, concluded that in order to join the Union it would be necessary to be able to assume the obligations of membership by satisfying the economic and political conditions. The political conditions (the so called political Copenhagen criteria) are that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The Helsinki European Council added that ‘compliance with the political criteria laid down at the Copenhagen European Council is a prerequisite for the opening of accession negotiations …’.

In the case of Turkey, the Commission examined its preparations for membership in its regular report issued on 13 October 1999 (1) and did not consider that Turkey meets the political Copenhagen criteria. In particular, it said that ‘there are serious shortcomings in terms of human rights and protection of minorities’. There is no question of opening negotiations with Turkey until the political criteria are met.

As far as the other candidates are concerned, in the composite paper accompanying the 1999 regular reports, the Commission concluded that ‘with the very positive developments in Slovakia, and with the exception of Turkey, the overall record of the candidate countries in relation to building stable and robust democracies, respecting the rule of law, has improved. However, the treatment of minorities and the Roma, and the situation of children in care in Romania continue to give rise to concern.’

The Commission is closely following the situation on the specific issues singled out in the 1999 regular reports, and will provide a detailed assessment of the human rights situation in all candidate countries in the framework of its 2000 regular reports. These reports are currently under preparation and are scheduled to be adopted by the Commission in early November 2000.

(1) COM(1999) 513 and 514 final. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/75

(2001/C 72 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1551/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission (18 May 2000)

Subject: Validity of the application of purchasing power parity (PPP)

In its reply to Written Question E-0275/00 (1) the Commission stated that, with reference to the meeting of the working party on PPPs held in Luxembourg on 21 and 22 June 1999, ‘neither during this meeting in Luxembourg, nor after the meeting, did the Portuguese delegation make any statement (or complaint) on the validity of PPPs and their use in Community regulations’.

Nevertheless, the Commission makes no reference to statements and complaints made before the meeting. Is it not the case that, on 5 May 1998, the Portuguese national statistical authorities questioned ‘the validity of PPPs and their use in Community regulations’?

Is it not the case that the Luxembourg meeting of the working party on PPPs did not result in any significant changes to the situation and that, consequently, the Portuguese authorities did not express any change of opinion on the matter?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 169.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission (10 July 2000)

Despite detailed investigation, it has not been possible to find any trace of such a statement which the Honourable Member claims to have been made by the Portuguese national statistical authorities.

(2001/C 72 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1553/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission (18 May 2000)

Subject: Market prices and values

In its reply to Written Question E-0273/00 (1) the Commission appears to be confusing two different phenomena: the existence of price differences resulting from administrative and/or macroeconomic policy measures, generally considered on the basis of the classic text ‘The Purchasing Power of Money’ by Irving Fisher, and differences in market value for equal or similar goods and services arising from differences in supply and/or demand best summed up by John Maynard Keynes.

Keynes quotes Dr Watson on a visit to the Isle of Skye, when he says (and I quote from memory) that, if the eggs on your miserable island are cheap, it is not because there is an abundance of eggs but because money is scarce.

The problem posed here is impossible to resolve in the context of statistical method, because it belongs to the field of economic theory.

As conceived by Fisher, PPPs represent the appropriate method for looking beyond price differences which do not stem from market mechanisms, which is not the case when the market itself attaches different values to goods.

As Dr Watson realised using his own common sense, the value of goods and services varies not only according to conditions of supply but also according to conditions of demand, especially where their mobility is low.

That being so, does the Commission not consider it absurd to correct the overall income of a particular geographical area using the assumed market value of goods and services in that area, to the extent that possible differences in prices do not reflect administrative measures? C 72 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Does the Commission not believe that it would be appropriate to use an in-depth knowledge of economic theory as a basis before proposing measures to correct income in real terms, such as PPPs?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 114.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

The Honourable Member seems to allude to the distinction between changes in price level (i.e. inflation), on the one hand, and changes in relative prices, on the other hand. The first is mainly a consequence of macroeconomic policies, in particular monetary policy, and the latter is an outcome of demand and supply conditions of markets. Within a monetary union, differences in inflation rates are usually low because of a single monetary policy and a co-ordinated economic policy, but differences in relative prices can still be considerable due to transaction costs which prevent arbitrage, in particular for non-traded goods. There- fore, in a monetary union, the main differences in purchasing power of money (PPPs) between countries arise from different relative prices.

(2001/C 72 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1555/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Freedom of religion in Macedonia

Can the Commission confirm that the constitutional court in Macedonia has banned prayers from being said in schools in Macedonia?

Can the Commission explain the reasons for this ban?

Does the Commission consider that this ban is in line with the European principle of freedom of religion?

What possibilities are open to the Commission to bring about discussion of this ban in Macedonia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

The Commission can confirm that the Constitutional Court of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has annulled by its decision No U.br. 195/99 (published in the official Gazette of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia No 36/2000 of 12 May 2000), an Act of the Ministry of Education establishing a prayer at the occasion of the yearly inaugural classes in elementary and secondary schools of the school year 1999/2000.

The ruling of the Constitutional Court was based, in substance, on Article 19 of the Constitution of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia that reads that ‘The Macedonian Orthodox Church and other religious communities and groups are separate from the state and equal before the law’. This principle of separation between religions and the state was the main reason behind the ruling of the Court.

This ruling is in line with the European principle of freedom of religion (as established, inter alia, in Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), which is guaranteed in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Article 9 of the constitution of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia reads that ‘Citizens of the Republic of Macedonia are equal in their freedoms and rights, regardless of sex, race, colour of skin, national and social origin, political and religious beliefs, property and social status’, and Article 19 that ‘The freedom of religious confession is 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/77

guaranteed. The right to express one’s faith freely and publicly, individually or with others is guaranteed [….]’. The decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and executive.

The Commission does not deem relevant, therefore, to start discussion with the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on a ruling of its Constitutional Court.

(2001/C 72 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1565/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(24 May 2000)

Subject: Government aid for audiovisual productions

The Commission wants to confine government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget. This proposal is the first occasion that the Commission has applied the competition rules in full in the area of cultural policy.

This action will have a pernicious effect on audiovisual initiatives in small and medium-sized Member States and cultural areas. They have more limited sources of finance than the large Member States and cultural areas. Moreover, a relative yardstick (in this case the 50 % rule), as used by the Commission, gives a distorted picture of the amounts actually invested.

1. Does the Council agree with the Commission’s proposal to limit government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget? If so, why?

2. Does the Council acknowledge that this proposal is the first occasion that the Commission has applied the competition rules in full in the area of cultural policy? If no, how then should limiting government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget be interpreted?

3. In the Councils opinion, can limiting government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget be reconciled with the Commission’s objective of supporting the development of small and medium-sized Member States and cultural areas? If so, in what way does the Council think that limiting government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget will contribute to developing small and medium-sized Member states and cultural areas?

4. Will the Council oppose the Commission’s proposal to limit government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget in view of the detrimental effect this will have on audiovisual initiatives in small and medium-sized Member states and cultural areas? If not, why not, and what are the Council’s reasons for supporting the Commission’s proposal?

(26 September 2000)

The Council has not received any proposal from the Commission concerning the matter raised by the Honourable Parliamentarian. As the Honourable Parliamentarian certainly is aware, in accordance with the Treaty, the Council does not act in this matter unless it receives a proposal from the Commission (Article 89 ECT). The Council also may, on application by a Member State, decide that a specific aid granted by that State shall be considered to be compatible with the common market if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances (article 88, paragraph 2, 3d subparagraph ECT). No such application has been received by the Council concerning the C 72 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1572/00 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Council

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Public statements by Council officials

Does the Presidency of the Council agree with the statement by Mr de Boissieu, Deputy Secretary-General of the Council, as reported in The European Voice on 6 April 2000, that, since the Council is a decision- making body, openness in the manner in which it takes decisions is not a particular priority?

What are the terms of reference for the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council? To whom must he report in performing his duties?

Is there a code of conduct or are there internal rules governing the public appearances made by officials from the Council’s General Secretariat? If not, why not?

(18/19 September 2000)

Mr P. de Boissieu, Deputy Secretary-General of the Council, appeared before the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 3 April 2000 at the invitation of the Committee’s Chairman. The version of Mr de Boissieu’s remarks reported in ‘The European Voice’ of 6 April 2000 binds that newspaper only. The members of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs who attended the session heard exactly what Mr de Boissieu said.

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 207(2) of the EC Treaty, the Council is assisted by a General Secretariat, under the responsibility of a Secretary-General, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy who is assisted by a Deputy Secretary-General responsible for the running of the General Secretariat. The Secretary-General and the Deputy Secretary-General are appointed by the Council acting unanimously.

Public activities of officials of the Council General Secretariat are governed by the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, notably Article 12.

(2001/C 72 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1574/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Land development on Penteli

The WWF and other environmental organisations claim that a draft Presidential Decree is to release 600 hectares of land at Penteli to building firms. In the last five years, Penteli has been swept by fires and lost more than 50 000 hectares of woodland. 200 of the 600 hectares released for development are forest, the use of which is prohibited by the Constitution. 90 hectares form part of the Pentelikon, a class A protected area, and many others were burned down in the fires of 1998. Previous attempts to develop the area were ruled unconstitutional by the Council of State.

Given that the third Community Support Framework provides a variety of funding to create a well- balanced environment in Attica, while releasing the land for development will alter the environment to the detriment of the lives of the inhabitants of the region and the natural heritage of the country, what steps will the Commission take to persuade the Greek Government to withdraw the draft Presidential Decree and enforce its own legislation to protect its forests? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/79

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

The Commission has been active in building environmental considerations into all measures to be financed under the 3rd Community support framework. Particular attention has been paid to the areas forming part of the Natura 2000 network, i.e. areas that receive protection under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2). For these areas an agreement has been established under which all Member States accept the commitment to finance measures that will not cause any damage to these areas. When required, Member States will proceed with the designation of additional areas to the network.

The Commission has not received any official notification of the draft presidential decree aiming to drop the characterisation of forest areas in Greece. There is also no notification of any complaints about this draft decree. The area covered by the Pentelikon mountain has not received any characterisation as a Natura 2000 area and the Commission is not aware of any kind of protection status applied at European level.

As any land characterised as a forest area is protected in Greece under the Greek Constitution, the Commission considers that it is for the Council of State to examine all the necessary information in order to reply on the acceptability of the proposed decree. Bearing in mind that the Pentelikon area does not form part of the Natura 2000 network site for Greece, the Commission cannot make any effective suggestion to the Greek State in relation to funds available under the 3rd Community support framework.

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

(2001/C 72 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1575/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2000)

Subject: Relation between mortality rates and air pollution

In reply to my recent question (E-2270/99) (1) concerning ozone levels in Greece, the Commission stated that the cost-benefit analysis of the proposal showed that benefits were higher than costs. For the first time in an EU document, tables 9 to 12 of the annex to the explanatory memorandum of the proposal for a directive on national emission ceilings (COM(1999) 125) (2) give figures which, upon analysis, yield actual mortality rates.

As these figures are extremely alarming and any conclusions that may be drawn by a non-expert reading of the document are fraught with risk, will the Commission say:

1. what the probable number of fatalities is in Greece on the basis of which the total benefits were calculated in tables 9 to 12 of the annex (99/0067 COD) concerning acute and chronic mortality,

2. how the same calculations were made for morbidity, and

3. why two different parameters, VOSL and VOLU, are used?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 135. (2) OJ C 56 E, 29.2.2000, p. 34.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

1. Tables 10 and 11 of the explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposal for a directive on national emission ceilings (COM(1999) 125) illustrate the monetised benefits resulting from emission C 72 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

control measures additional to those proscribed in existing legislation (i.e. benefits additional to those associated with the ‘Reference’ scenario). These benefits result from emissions reductions beyond the reference scenario for the four pollutants comprising nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) sulphur dioxide (SO2) and ammonia. The monetised benefits calculated for Greece are based upon a reduced level of premature mortality (70 cases) related to short-term exposure to ozone and secondary particulate matter, and a decrease of approximately 1700 in life years lost.

2. The analysis starts with quantification of the change in exposure of the population and sensitive groups which results from the emission reduction of the Commission proposal. In order to quantify the change in incidence of the effects of air pollution, exposure response functions are applied for various types of illnesses and diseases. Several types of health impact on morbidity were considered including acute effects such as bronchidolator usage in asthmatics, cough in asthmatics, lower respiratory symptoms in asthmatics, asthma attacks, respiratory hospital admissions, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular hospital admissions, restrictive activity days and chronic effects such as incidence of bronchitis, cough. Benefits are quantified using information on willingness to pay to avoid these illnesses, combined with the costs for medical treatment, etc.

3. The monetised values that are attached to chronic and acute mortality impacts are difficult to assess and the subject of much debate. To indicate the range of results that can be derived from different assumptions, the Commission’s study employs two different approaches: it considers the value of a statistical life (VOSL) and the value of a lost life year (VOLY).

The VOSL technique assesses the willingness-to-pay of individuals to reduce the risk of mortality. The result is an indicator of the importance that people attach to risk, and not an assessment of how valuable life is per se. The approach taken here used relatively conservative estimates of € 2,2 million as the VOSL for acute mortality effects and € 1,1 million for the VOSL for chronic mortality effects. There has been some debate about the appropriateness of using the VOSL for cases where the reduction in life expectancy attributable to exposure is small. An alternative approach is to attach a value to each life year lost (VOLY) as a result of premature mortality, thereby adjusting for the short life expectancy of those affected. The Commission’s study uses a value of € 110 000 a life year lost for acute mortality and € 67 000 for chronic mortality.

However, it can also be argued that the VOLY approach is inconsistent with the empirical evidence on the relation between age and willingness to pay to avoid risk. Rather than address the debate between VOSL and VOLY directly, the benefit assessment uses both approaches to indicate the sensitivity of the benefits analysis to this issue. Therefore, for both chronic and acute health effects there are two measures of the benefits, of which the lower estimates reflect the use of the VOLY approach and the higher estimates the VOSL approach.

(2001/C 72 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1579/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(24 May 2000)

Subject: ‘European Museum’ project

The Treaty lays down that the Community ‘shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore’. In its answer to Written Question E-2461/99, the Council said nothing about applying this Community objective to the ‘European Museum’ project.

Given the project’s progress and the possible involvement of EU institutions, I should be grateful if the Council would answer the following questions:

1. Is the possible selection of the ‘Empire of Charlemagne’ as the historical starting point of the ‘European Museum’ in compliance with the treaty provision referred to above? (a) If so, what arguments can the Council advance to reconcile it with the treaty provision that the Community ‘shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, … and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore’? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/81

(b) If not, what concept does the Council deem appropriate to reconcile the ‘European Museum’ with the treaty provision that the Community ‘shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, … and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore’?

2. Does the Council feel that the promoters should apply the language legislation of the Belgian Federation fully and correctly in the ‘European Museum’ in order to act in accordance with the treaty provision referred to above? (a) If so, will the Council, in due course, ask the promoters to apply the language legislation of the Belgian Federation fully and correctly in the ‘European Museum’ in order to act in accordance with the treaty provision which states that the Community ‘shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity…’? (b) If not, why not, since non-application of the language legislation will breach the treaty provision that the Community ‘shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity’?

(26 September 2000)

The Museum Project referred to by the Honourable Member is not the result of a Community initiative.

The Council did not therefore receive a Commission proposal for the setting up of such a museum. At its meeting on 23 November 1999 the Council was briefed by the Greek delegation and took note of that delegation’s concerns regarding the objectives and priorities of the project as conceived by the Belgian private law association which is the promoter.

The Council will adopt an appropriate position, within the framework of its powers, if a proposal is put to it directly.

(2001/C 72 E/096) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1580/00 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Ritual slaughter of live animals

For many years now, the celebration of the ‘Eid-el-Kabir’ festival in France has resulted in live animals being slaughtered without stunning and outside slaughter houses. While the inability of French slaughter houses in urban areas to deal adequately with the demand from local Muslim communities is a factor in this situation, it cannot be a justification for allowing the inhumane slaughter of animals to continue. Due regard must be given to cultural and religious practices, but this must not occur at the expense of animal welfare and hygiene considerations.

Can the Commission confirm that France is in breach of its legal obligations under Council Directive 93/ 119/EC (1) concerning the slaughter of live animals? What steps is the Commission taking to see that the Directive is correctly implemented? When will the Commission commence legal proceedings under Article 226, if France is indeed in breach of Directive 93/119/EC?

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21. C 72 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

The Commission is informed about the treatment of the animals during this event. The inadequate slaughterhouse capacity in certain urban areas of France appears to be one of the reasons for the observations made by animal protection organisations with regard to treatment of animals during the festival.

Treatment of animals which causes suffering during restraint and slaughter is not acceptable. The Commission considers that the French authorities must find a practical solution for the problem concerning slaughterhouse capacity.

Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Community legislation concerning the slaughter and killing of animals in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993, on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.

The Commission has been in contact with the French authorities concerning the need to improve the arrangements. On that occasion reassurances had been received prior to the festival that the French authorities were taking a wide range of measures including close contacts with the different Islamic cultural groups to involve them more widely in discussions on this issue in order to improve the situation and achieve better animal welfare and hygiene conditions.

Now that the festivity has passed a formal report, which has already been requested, is awaited from the French authorities before taking further initiatives, including if necessary opening proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) EC treaty.

(2001/C 72 E/097) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1585/00 by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Finland’s horizontal rural development programme

The Finnish Government submitted its proposed horizontal rural development plan to the Commission last October. The programme comprises environmental aid to farmers and LFA support programmes.

Consideration of Finland’s proposal still has not been concluded.

As of 26 May, farmers are required to commit themselves to new environmental and LFA programmes for five years, although their content has not even been decided yet. This situation renders farmers’ legal position extremely uncertain, as aid under these programmes is expected to amount to nearly half of total aid to farmers.

How many other Member States’ corresponding programmes have not yet been processed?

What is the reason for the delays?

Which persons and departments are responsible for the delays?

What will the Commission do to remedy this maladministration?

How will the Commission shoulder its responsibility and restore legal certainty for farmers? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/83

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The Finnish horizontal rural development plan was foreseen to be presented to the committee on agricultural structures and rural development (STAR committee) on 29 March 2000. However, due to some pending problems of the Finnish action plan under Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1) the point was withdrawn to ensure further clarification of the situation. The April 2000 meeting of the STAR committee was partially cancelled as the committee on the development and conversion of regions acted as STAR-Committee dealing only with objective 1 issues. Therefore, the Finnish plan was on the agenda of the STAR-committee on 24 May 2000 where a favourable opinion was given. The final step on the approval procedure will be the Commission decision.

For the programming period of 2000-2006, the Finnish plan is the first European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) funded plan from Member States to be examined by the STAR committee.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.

(2001/C 72 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1587/00 by Jürgen Zimmerling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Effects of the resolutions on Cyprus

On 16 November 1995, and again on 27 March 1996, the European Parliament adopted resolutions on the situation in Cyprus (B4-1387/95 (1) and B4-0034/96 (2)):

What effect have these resolutions had?

What was the Turkish reaction to them?

(1) OJ C 323, 4.12.1995, p. 117. (2) OJ C 117, 22.4.1996, p. 15.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Honourable Member’s question refers to incidents and tensions along the buffer zone between the two communities in Cyprus.

The Commission firmly believes that, following the positive developments at the Helsinki European Council in December 1999 and in the light of the greatly improved relations between Greece and Turkey, along with the designation by the Member States of Turkey as a candidate country, a start has been made towards decreasing political tensions in Cyprus. This summer will see the resumption in Geneva of the proximity talks between the two communities lead by the United Nations. The Commission hopes that further progress towards a lasting settlement of the political problem will be made. Meanwhile, the enlargement negotiations with the Republic of Cyprus are progressing well with 15 of the negotiating chapters provisionally closed. Further initiatives are being taken to set up bi-communal projects following the visit of the member responsible for Enlargement to Cyprus in March 2000. The Commission is of the opinion that the proximity talks and accession process can mutually reinforce each other thereby reducing tensions and incidents as noted in the resolutions of the Parliament cited by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is not aware of any precise reaction from the Turkish authorities to these resolutions. C 72 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1591/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Canary Islands transport network project

Was consideration given to the Canary Islands’ status as an outermost region, as provided for in Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, when the Canary Islands transport network project, submitted by the Directorate-General for Transport of the Government of the Canary Islands, was examined?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The 1999 call for proposals in order to obtain transport subsidies (1) aims at the selection of the most promising projects submitted for joint financing by the Commission. In this connection, that call sets out a certain number of practical aims to be met by such projects, and these include, in particular, safety promotion, providing the Commission with deeper knowledge, acquiring statistical data in all areas of transport, etc. The call (for proposals) also describes in detail the practical scope of those projects, the results anticipated and the conditions under which they are eligible.

Outermost location is well represented in several European transport policy activities, such as the Community approaches to trans-European networks. However, in this call outermost location is not a principal selection criterion. Conversely the wording of the call stresses that, in order to be eligible, projects must possess a significant European dimension and value. When the project submitted by the Canarian authorities was assessed it was considered to be attractive, but its European dimension was considered to be inadequate.

(1) OJ C 41, 16.2.1999.

(2001/C 72 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1596/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Pre-trial detention

On 6 July 1997 Jean-Jacques Pitalugue, Gilles Benhayoun, Jean-Luc Della Justina and Maxime Briat were arrested for having produced colour photocopies of banknotes to a value of FF 20 800, some of which were put into circulation (to a value of FF 3 500) despite their poor quality.

The men were arrested and charged and are currently being detained at Fresnes remand prison under a detention order of limited duration dated 6 July 1997 and an order of 30 June 1998 extending their pre- trial detention as from 6 July 1998, renewed again on 4 January 1999 as from 6 January 1999.

On 6 January 2000 all four accused were committed for trial at the Assize Court in the department of Loiret on charges of forgery or counterfeiting of banknotes that are legal tender in France, by order of the Orleans Indictments Division, although they were discharged on the count of conspiracy. The four accused are now in their thirty-fifth month of pre-trial detention.

Does the Commission not consider that the criteria generally applied as regards the length of pre-trial detention have not in fact been complied with in this case? If this is so, does it not consider that it should intervene, within the framework of its new powers in the area of justice under the Amsterdam Treaty, to secure compliance with reasonable periods for pre-trial detention and judgments or, failing that, the release of defendants under Article 5(3) of the European Human Rights Convention? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/85

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (3 July 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s view that preventive detention should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary for reasons such as ensuring the accused’s presence at his trial. However, there is no Union legal instrument that lays down generally recognized criteria regarding the duration of preventive detention.

If the rules the Honourable Member has in mind are those laid down in the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Article 5(3) of which the Honourable Member indeed mentions, it must be pointed out that it is not for the Commission to take action in cases of alleged violations of this Council of Europe Convention by a Member State of the European Union unless the disputed act of the Member State has been taken within the scope of application of Community law and therefore equally constitutes an alleged violation of fundamental rights as general principles of Community law.

(2001/C 72 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1605/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 May 2000)

Subject: Sewer systems in Pendeli

The western part of the settlement of Pendeli (Mikri Kallithea) on one of the three mountain ranges surrounding the Attica basin is still without a sewer system, and the needs of the local population are met by septic tanks. However, owing to the steep gradient of the land the sewage spills into the environment and small streams in the vicinity, and this has a number of adverse consequences.

Since this is causing serious health problems for the local inhabitants and widespread pollution of the subsoil, and given that the previous Community Support Frameworks supported actions of this kind, will the Commission say: 1. Is it examining any practical proposals for the construction of a sewer system in the region; and 2. Does it intend to support such a measure should it be proposed?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (11 July 2000)

In terms of Community law, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1) requires Member States to ensure that all conurbations having more than 2 000 inhabitant equivalents (an inhabitant equivalent IE is an organic-pollution measuring unit representing the average pollution produced per person per day) to be provided with urban waste water collection and treatment systems. The deadlines for providing those systems are 31 December 1998, 31 December 2000 and 31 December 2005, depending upon the size of the conurbation and the sensitivity of the recipient waters.

The Pendéli settlement (Mikri Kallithea) would seem to be located outside the Athens conurbation and to be inhabited by less than 2 000 IE. This being the case Community law does not apply to that settlement. The action to be taken in order to reverse the adverse effect on the environment of the discharge of waste water falls within the powers of the Greek authorities.

The Commission feels that the type of work referred to by the Honourable Member could be eligible for joint financing under the next Community support framework for Greece during the 2000-2006 structural-fund programming period. However, depending upon the principle of subsidiarity, the choice of projects to be funded lies with the authorities in the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991. C 72 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1606/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Sport event for kidney sufferers

The Kidney Sufferers Sports Association intends to organise the first European games for kidney sufferers in Athens in order to give kidney sufferers the opportunity to become involved in sport and also to make public opinion more aware of the idea of organ donations. Given the particular nature of the participants in these games, will the Commission co-fund the above sports event? If so, through which financial instrument?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

Although it recognises the value of sport in promoting health, the Commission regrets to have to inform the Honourable Member that the Community budget does not have a heading that would allow it to co- fund a sporting event of this kind.

(2001/C 72 E/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1607/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Illegal collection of waste oils

Directive 75/439/EEC (1) on the disposal of waste oils provides that the Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the safe collection and disposal of waste oils. According to the Commission’s latest report, in Greece 92 % of waste oils was collected illegally and sold without any processing as fuel.

Given that Greece transposed the above Directive into national law in 1995, but has failed to ensure that mechanisms are set up for the legal collection and treatment of oils and that the burning of waste oils generates fumes which are harmful to the environment, what measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that Greece effectively implements the Directive on waste oils?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

In the report from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament on the implementation of Community waste legislation (1), the figures provided for the disposal of waste oils in Greece were taken from the study ‘Economics of Waste Oils Regeneration’ done by Coopers & Lybrand (2), because the reply to the questionnaire sent by the national authorities arrived too late to be included in the report.

The official figures provided by the Greek authorities are currently being examined by the Commission.

(1) COM(1999) 752 final. (2) Economics of Waste Oils Regeneration, Coopers & Lybrand, the Hague, 29 January 1997. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/87

(2001/C 72 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1615/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of the rights of literary translators

The Italian National Writers’ Union, which is a member of the European Writers’ Congress (EWC), has complained about the plight of literary translators who are forced to sign contracts ceding all their rights for twenty years to publishers in exchange for a flat-rate fee per page, equal to about half of the usual going rate in Europe. In Italy translators derive no financial benefits from any of the uses made of their translations, contrary to the Council of Europe recommendation of December 1993, which stipulates that payment must take account of the subsequent commercial career of the translated work, something for which provision is already made in Italy’s 1941 copyright law. Publishers are still systematically exploiting the loopholes in the law in order to turn ‘translation contracts’ (i.e. the ‘author’s contract’ provided for in Article 4 of the abovementioned law) into ‘service contracts’, to the detriment of the weaker party. In Europe this unjust practice has now been consigned to the past. The last country to come into line with current European practice was Spain in 1989. In Italy, however, it is still prevalent, putting literary translators at an unfair advantage.

In the light of these considerations:

1. What are the Commission’s views on this matter?

2. Does it not consider that the practice followed by Italy is inconsistent with the principles contained in the directive on copyright in the information society?

3. What will it do to bring Italy into line with the rest of Europe, ending this anomaly and seeing that justice is done for Italian literary translators?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for the information given on the payment of literary translators in Italy.

First of all, the Commission would like to point out that literary translators are considered to be authors, under the terms of the Berne International Convention and Community directives, and may therefore exercise the rights and obligations attached to this category of rightholders.

Secondly, Community legislation in the field of copyright and related rights does not yet harmonise the contractual rules applicable in the Member States or the payment conditions which apply to rightholders. The Member States are therefore free to prescribe whichever rules they choose.

The Community legislation can, however, give certain guidelines as to the arrangements to be followed. Thus, Article 4 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (1) lays down that an equitable remuneration should be paid to authors for the rental or lending of their work. In harmonising such remuneration, the Community legislation does not stipulate how it should be shared out, but it is clear from this Directive that even in cases where the author is to receive a flat-rate payment, this payment should take the commercial exploitation of the work into account and, if necessary, be increased if the work meets with commercial success.

Finally, with regard to the proposal for a Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (2), this does not aim to harmonise the contractual rules contained in the Member States’ legislation. C 72 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to send it further information on this matter, so that it can assess whether the situation which currently exists in Italy could be such that it might prevent the internal market from operating properly and result in distortions of competition in the treatment of authors at Community level.

(1) OJ L 346, 27.11.1992. (2) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.

(2001/C 72 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1616/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: The euro

Given that the single currency has for many months been continuing to fall in value against the dollar, which, as a result of the increase in commodity prices, is increasingly becoming the world currency:

1. Will the Commission immediately launch an inquiry to ascertain whether the continuing fall in the value of the euro is a result of speculation, economic interests or political measures designed to weaken the European Union and prevent it taking part in world markets, as an alternative to other powerful countries, bearing in mind also that in recent months no individual Member States have suffered from economic crises and the employment situation has remained as it was before the launch of the euro?

2. Will it also say why no economic plan has yet been introduced, since this is the only valid tool for supporting and asserting the position of the euro and whether the absence of such a plan, which clearly no EU governments want, is also evidence of a political design aimed at breaking up the existing European structure and replacing it with a different political and economic framework?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2000)

The Commission does not think that recent exchange rate developments are the result of any political- economic conspiracy against the euro and hence it does not intend to start an inquiry on this issue. Exchange rate fluctuations between the main world currencies are an intrinsic feature of the international financial system ever since the dismantling of the Bretton-Woods system.

While the present level of the exchange rate of the euro is widely regarded as lower than economic fundamentals would justify, it should be pointed out that the euro was introduced in 1999 at a relatively high level, due to inflows of capital into the euro area in anticipation of its introduction. Part of the depreciation during 1999 can be seen as a correction of this relatively high initial value.

Relative cyclical developments and prospects in the euro area compared to other main world regions have also to be taken into account in the course of 1999. In particular, while growth in the euro area was slowing down, the American economy continued to surprise for its buoyancy, and the Japanese economy emerged from a long recession. The outlook for the euro area economy has now considerably improved, with robust GDP growth expected in 2000 and 2001.

The euro is being widely used by international financial markets. It was the favourite issuing currency in international bond markets in 1999 and in the first quarter of 2000. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/89

(2001/C 72 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1625/00 by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Civil war in Sudan

Various recent agency reports have indicated that the activities of foreign oil companies in the Sudan are exacerbating the civil war in that country, as government troops and allied militias are being deployed to protect the oilfields. These militias have been responsible for driving tens of thousands of villagers from their homes and for the abduction and murder of many men, women and children.

1. Can the Council confirm these reports, and what is its own assessment of these developments?

2. Would the Council state whether, to the best of its knowledge, any European oil companies are also operating in the Sudan, and if so, which ones?

(26 September 2000)

The Council remains convinced that a political solution to the conflict in southern Sudan must be found in the framework of the ongoing IGAD peace process. In its renewed political dialogue with the Government of Sudan, the European Union continues to urge the Sudanese authorities to fully respect the rules and principles of international humanitarian law and it encourages them to create an atmosphere conducive to substantial progress towards a negotiated and lasting peace in that country.

With regard to the activities of foreign oil companies in Sudan, the Council is aware of reports on this matter, such as the one issued by Amnesty International on 3 May 2000, but it has not yet made its own assessment of the issues at stake. The Council notes that, according to Amnesty International, several European oil companies are to various degrees involved in oil extraction in the Sudan, but for the reasons indicated above, it is not in a position to confirm or deny this information.

(2001/C 72 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1626/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Statistics on unemployment in Greece

Eurostat has repeatedly reminded the Greek Government that the National Statistics Service of Greece (ESYE) had not, by the end of April 2000, provided details of the level of unemployment in Greece in 1999, not even indicative data for the first quarter.

1. What is the Greek Government’s official explanation for this delay in providing data on unemployment in Greece in 1999? What are the Commission’s views on these explanations?

2. Have there been other instances in the past of delays in providing statistics by the ESYE? If so, what were the causes of those delays?

3. What is the most recent data that the Commission has on Greece and what is the unemployment trend in that country in the light of the statistics for the most recent period? C 72 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

1. Two explanations were given by the Greek statistical office for the delay in transmitting the 1999 Labour force survey (LFS) results. In the second quarter of 1999 the LFS data collection was for the first time conducted by external staff. The recruitment and training of this staff took more time than expected and the data collection started late. At the moment the data is collected using paper questionnaires and the control between answers given in two consecutive quarters has shown to be difficult and has taken some extra time. The LFS is regulated by the Community legislation. Deadlines should be respected but it is up to the Member States to decide how the national surveys are conducted.

2. This is the first time there have been this kind of problems with the Greek Statistical Office concerning the LFS data collection. The problems are mainly due to the transition to a continuous survey.

3. Number of unemployed and unemployment rate in Greece

Year 1997 Year 1998

Number Unemployment rate Number Unemployment rate Total 408,1 9,6 478,3 10,8 Males 161,9 6,2 188,5 7,0 Females 246,2 14,8 289,9 16,5

(2001/C 72 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1632/00 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Collapse of AY Bank in the former Yugoslavia

Is the Commission aware that my constituent, Kevin John Morley of Billericay, remains without a proper redundancy payment after his employer, the AY Bank, went into administration following the imposition of EU sanctions on the former Yugoslavia in 1998?

Is there any provision for financial support for European citizens innocently disadvantaged in this way?

Can the Commission suggest any additional way in which my constituent can secure proper redress for his just demands?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

The Commission is aware that AY Bank went into administration in accordance with the United Kingdom Insolvency Act on 25 June 1999. Some days before the bank’s funds were frozen in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1294/1999 of 15 June 1999 concerning a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1295/98 and (EC) No 1607/98 (1). As an administration order is made only if the court is satisfied that a company is or is likely to become unable to pay its debts, that order should not be attributed to the freezing of funds.

The Commission notes that the Regulation does not address the question whether employees are entitled to payment of redundancy payments by employers, and that this matter is to be decided in accordance with United Kingdom domestic law, including the Insolvency Act. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/91

Assuming entitlement to redundancy payments exists, the Commission notes that the Regulation exempts payments of normal salaries, including compulsory redundancy payments, from the freezing of funds. If the employee were entitled to payment of non-compulsory redundancy payments, the Commission would be empowered to grant an authorisation to use the frozen funds to pay them on proof that not granting an authorisation would cause damage to the interests of the Community.

(1) OJ L 153, 19.6.1999.

(2001/C 72 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1634/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Duty on the transport of fuel across borders

1. Could the Commission please confirm that import duties are paid on the transport of fuel across borders?

2. If so, could the Commission explain why iport duties are imposed on the transport of fuel across borders whereas they are not imposed in relation to the transport of alcohol across borders?

3. Does the Commission agree that this arrangement contradicts the fundamental principle of free trade and the single market?

4. Does the Commission have any plans to extend single market principles to the fuel trade?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

1. and 2. In the situation described by the Honourable Member, the import duty in question is actually the excise duty payable on the release for home use of a product subject to excise duty in a Member State.

The taxation of intra-Community movements by Union citizens of products subject to excise duties is dealt with in Article 8 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1). According to that Article, where private individuals acquire and transport products for their own use, the principle governing the internal market requires that excise duty be charged in the Member State in which the products are acquired.

However, Article 9(3) of the same Directive allows the Member States to provide for excise duty to be chargeable in the Member State of consumption on the acquisition of mineral oils already released for consumption in another Member State if such products are transported using atypical modes of transport by private individuals or on their behalf. ‘Atypical transport’ in this instance means the transport of fuels other than in the tanks of vehicles or in appropriate reserve fuel canisters and the transport of liquid heating products other than by means of tankers used on behalf of professional traders.

The scope for different tax treatment of acquisitions of mineral oils is in particular due to the hazards of transporting mineral oils. Since the need to comply with particularly strict safety measures entails the use of special vehicles, the condition of transport by the private individual, which is a precondition for the exemption provided for in Article 8, is no longer fulfilled. C 72 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

3. and 4. In view of the answer to questions 1 and 2, the Commission feels that the arrangements described are not contrary to the principles of the internal market and does not intend to propose that they be modified.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, last amended by Directive 96/99/EC of 30 December 1996 (OJ L 8, 11.1.1997).

(2001/C 72 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1635/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: VAT proposals

In the light of the Commission’s presentation on VAT to the Ecofin meeting of Monday, 8 May, would the Commission please answer the following questions:

1. Will the Commission clarify the status of its 1996 proposal, brought forward by Mario Monti, to move to a common system of VAT with full harmonisation of VAT rules and rates?

2. In the light of the Commission’s admission that this plan is not politically or practically possible, will it formally abandon all plans for a common system of VAT based on the 1996 Monti paper?

3. If the Commission is not prepared to distance itself from the 1996 proposals, will it please clarify the following points arising from them: (a) Will the full implementation of the common system of VAT require all countries to apply a uniform system of exemptions? (b) Will it be possible for the UK to retain its system of zero-rating for certain products? (c) Might there be any circumstances where the proposed new rules of a common system of VAT would require VAT to be levied in the UK on books, food or children’s clothes?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

It should be pointed out from the outset that it is still the Commission’s opinion that the internal market could and would function better with a VAT system based on taxation in the Member State of origin as this would be easier to administer (and consequently less costly for business) and less susceptible to fraud (providing a better guarantee for stable tax revenue). When it adopted the current transitional arrangements, the Council also confirmed its commitment to such a system.

Therefore, it is not in any way the Commission’s intention to abandon the idea of a definitive system of taxation along the lines described in its 1996 programme for a common system of VAT (1). However, it must also be recognised that in the current climate the conditions are not propitious for rapid progress towards the necessary closer harmonisation of VAT rates and legislation, nor is it likely that significant progress will be made in the immediate future. This is the reason why, in the interest of improving the functioning of the internal market in the short term, the Commission considers it necessary to reappraise the programme it put forward in 1996 and to define a viable strategy based on four main objectives: simplification and modernisation of current rules, more uniform application of current rules and closer administrative co-operation.

The objective of such an exercise is to create fresh impetus within the Council to achieve the necessary improvements to the present system as quickly as possible. This will of course only be possible if all Member States are prepared to consider changes to their national VAT systems and, if necessary, agree to a reduction of the large number of special schemes or options and derogations, which exist at present. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/93

The Commission will need to reconsider, at the appropriate time, what conditions will be necessary to move to the definitive system. It is clearly too early to say what these will be, but it should be stressed that the zero-rating system applied in the United Kingdom is a transitional measure pending the adoption of the common VAT system.

(1) COM(96) 328 final.

(2001/C 72 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1645/00 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Video games and depleted uranium

In the ‘Starcraft’ video game (marketed in Italy by Blizzard), which like all too many products of this type is basically a war game, players can use uranium 238 to upgrade their weapons. An entry on page 43 of the Italian manual reads: ‘U238 ammunition research; this depleted uranium ammunition can improve the range of Gauss guns.’ A further entry on page 41 reads: ‘Radiation: an enemy unit hit by one of these weapons will be bathed in highly radioactive particles capable of inflicting considerable damage (…). The radioactive field will create serious problems (…). Eventually radioactivity levels will decrease’.

1. Does the Commission believe that it is right for young people and little children to become accustomed to the idea of using nuclear weapons?

2. Does the Commission agree that it should take steps to prevent the concept of nuclear weapon use becoming commonplace in Europe’s youth culture?

3. Does the Commission agree that it it would be appropriate to stem the flood of violence to which young children are being exposed by video games?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

At Community level the main legislative instrument specific to toys is Directive 88/378/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys (1). However, the prime purpose of this directive is to is to protect toy users from the risk of physical injury, by establishing safety requirements in terms of the physical, mechanical, chemical, electrical and other properties of toys.

The psychological development of the child, and the influence which certain games currently on the market may have on this development (games which trivialise and encourage the imaginary use of nuclear weapons or violence), or on morality in general, is primarily a matter for the Member States.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concerns and would point out that the national authorities do, in principle, have at their disposal the necessary powers and instruments for the protection of children. At Community level, Article 30 (ex Article 36) of the EC Treaty leaves it open to Member States, in the absence of Community harmonisation measures, to adopt national measures to restrict the marketing of this type of product on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security, or of the protection of the health and life of humans, provided that the measures that they adopt are commensurate with the objectives of protection.

So far, the idea of harmonising the provisions governing the protection of the psychological development or morality of children with regard to video games has not been considered.

(1) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988. C 72 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1660/00 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Regeneration of Ballymun, Dublin, Ireland

The redevelopment of one of the most deprived areas of Dublin, Ballymun, involves the demolition of hundreds of buildings and the relocation of 10 000 residents. The redevelopment covers an area of about 280 acres, and some of the projects are part-funded by the URBAN initiative. The regeneration scheme involves the development of a business and technology park on 100 acres of land.

Since, pursuant to Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) and subsequent amendments (97/11/EC) (2), any new developments in existing urban areas covering over 2 hectares must be assessed through an EIA, does the Commission take the view that the overall redevelopment of Ballymun should be assessed through an EIA?

Does it intend to bring legal proceedings against Ballymun Regeneration Ltd. for failing to tender and have an EIA carried out of the whole development at Ballymun?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

In 1999, the Commission received several complaints concerning a claimed failure to submit the entire redevelopment of Ballymun to environmental impact assessment pursuant to Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as modified by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997. The Commission made enquiries of the Irish authorities in 1999 and has since received a response. The Irish authorities contend that the plan for the overall redevelopment does not come within the scope of Directive 85/337/EEC, pointing out that the redevelopment is being carried out by way of a series of separate projects, some but not all of which have been made subject to environmental impact assessment pursuant to this Directive. The Commission has referred the information in this response to complainants, and is currently considering the extensive comments and observations received. The Commission expects to make a decision on the matter in the coming months. Where legal action is decided following a complaint, it relates to the Member State and not to a legal entity such as the company cited by the Honourable Member.

(2001/C 72 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1661/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Euro 2000 football tournament

Can the Commission confirm whether it has been contacted by any competent authority involved in the organisation of Euro 2000 expressing concern about the safety of the stadium in Charleroi for the match between England and Germany on 17 June?

Not only have experts in stadium safety voiced grave reservations about the size and capability of the stadium to cope with emergencies, but the Head of the Belgian Police Federation has also said that the narrow streets around the stadium will severely hamper crowd control. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/95

Whilst the responsibility rests quite rightly with the Belgian authorities, football supporters from many other Member States will be attending; would the Commissioner with special responsibilities for Sport therefore agree, given the potential for spectator violence and in order to put safety first, that the match should be moved to the more suitable location of the King Baudoin Stadium in Brussels? If so, could the Commission raise its concerns with UEFA while there is still time to change the arrangements for the match?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the Honorable Member that it has not been contacted by any competent authority expressing concern about the safety of the stadium in Charleroi for the match between England and Germany.

The responsibility for ensuring adequate safety to spectators and players during the matches held during EURO 2000 lies with the national authorities and football associations. On the basis of the information available, the Commission has good reasons to believe that these authorities and associations will be able to ensure adequate safety. In this connection it should be mentioned that according to the Union of European football associations (UEFA) the Charleroi stadium is safe and in conformity with UEFA rules.

The Commission therefore does not see the need to ask the organisers to have the match played at a different location.

(2001/C 72 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1666/00 by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Violation of children’s rights

On 3 May 2000 the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (Social Affairs Committee for Minors) made arrangements for the transfer to Switzerland of Izabayo Fidencie, a Ruandan child who had been found on Italian territory without the appropriate documents living with Nshimiyimana Juvenal, who claimed to be the girl’s father, despite documentary evidence establishing beyond doubt that he was not acting in good faith.

The appeal lodged with the Lazio Regional Administrative Court against the decision taken by the Social Affairs department of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers in this dramatic case without carefully examining the evidence provided by the Ruandan Government, which demonstrates that Nshimiyimana Juvenal was not telling the truth, shows that the administrative provision adopted was of a superficial nature.

The European Union has always claimed to be committed to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular affirming its commitment to fundamental social rights and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Furthermore, Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states ‘in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’ and declares the child’s right to a family, not the right of anyone to have a child.

1. What steps does the Council of Ministers of the European Union intend to take to ensure that Italy ascertains who Izabayo Fidencie’s parents actually are and entrusts her to the care of her legal or natural parents?

2. What steps does the Council of Ministers of the European Union intend to take to ensure that in the light of the new evidence produced and pending the judgement of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, Italy suspends the transfer to Switzerland of Izabayo Fidencie? C 72 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Reply (26 September 2000)

It is not for the Council to interfere when Member States exercise their powers to remove aliens from their territory.

(2001/C 72 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1673/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (29 May 2000)

Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers

Further to Ms Schreyer’s answer to my Written Question No E-0505/00 (1), will the Commission please indicate the cost of interest paid on late payments by the Commission in each year since its change of policy in 1997, together with the amounts claimed in each year?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (19 July 2000)

The Honourable Member is informed that the Commission only has data for 1999.

In its communication of 10 June 1997, the Commission decided to change its policy on contracts by introducing a clause formalising the maximum period of 60 days within which payment must be made and allowing creditors to claim interest on expiry of that period, unless payment was suspended at the Commission’s initiative. This measure was indeed put into practice since, in 1999 alone, 41 proposals for commitments in respect of interest on late payment were introduced by the Commission, for a total of € 1 114 870, of which € 932 289 had been paid by the end of the year by means of 282 individual payment orders.

(2001/C 72 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1674/00 by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (29 May 2000)

Subject: Resolution of Religious freedom

Following Parliament’s adoption on 11 February 1999 of a resolution on religious freedom (B4-0131/ 1999 (1)) which refers specifically to news of persecution of religious minorities in India, what action has the Commission taken to ensure that the Indian Government protects religious minorities and that the relevant human rights clauses in treaty agreements with India are rigorously implemented?

(1) OJ C 150, 28.5.1999, p. 385.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (22 June 2000)

Since a number of attacks on Christian families and facilities in 1998 the delegation of the Commission in New Delhi, in close consultation with the missions of the Member States, has been monitoring the situation regarding religious minorities in India. Particular attention has been given to assessing the implication of any discriminatory legislative measures that could affect the freedom of faith of Christians 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/97

as well as other religious groups in India. On various occasions, the Commission delegation and Union ambassadors have expressed their concern to the Indian government.

Moreover, the forthcoming Union-India Summit in Lisbon on 28 June 2000 will be an occasion to reaffirm joint commitment to universal values of democracy and respect of human rights, the rule of law and fundamental freedoms, traditions of diversity, plurality and tolerance.

(2001/C 72 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1675/00 by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Disabled air travellers

What steps has the Commission taken to ensure that disabled travellers do not suffer any discrimination when travelling with flight operators within the European Union? Specifically, what action has it taken to ensure the provision of disabled access and disabled facilities in airports and on commercial flights?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The Commission gives priority to protecting the rights of air passengers, including disabled people, to enable them to benefit fully from Community policy on air transport. It therefore adopted on 21 June 2000, a communication on the protection of air passengers (1). The Commission proposes legislation that, among other things, will guarantee special assistance for disabled people free of charge, such as assistance to and from the aircraft, and ensure that they are not denied boarding, if they have notified their disability when boarding the ticket and received confirmation. It strongly recommends the adoption of voluntary codes or service quality by airlines and airports to cover services for disabled people. After taking account of responses to the communication, the Commission will propose concrete measures.

(1) COM(2000) 365.

(2001/C 72 E/118) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1676/00 by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Methylphenidate

The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances classified Methylphenidate as having ‘high abuse potential’. What information does the Commission have on the prescription by psychiatrists in Europe of Methylphenidate for the treatment of what is known as ‘attention deficit disorder’ and on the abuse of this substance within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Methylphenidate is the active substance in a psychostimulant used to treat hyperactive attention disorders in children. C 72 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

The product has been authorised by the national authorities to be placed on the market. Monitoring, especially of its prescription and abuse, is therefore carried out by those authorities.

The Commission is not responsible for medicinal products, except those covered by the Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products (1) where a referral is made leading, after evaluation and the delivery of an opinion by the Scientific Committee of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, to a Commission Decision. No referral has been made to date in respect of the above product.

The risks associated with this medicinal product are well known and the marketing authorisations are accompanied by very detailed information for health professionals and a leaflet for users. The information on the product must include counter-indications, warnings, precautions regarding use, undesirable effects and instructions for use.

More generally, the risk/benefit ratio must always be evaluated before authorisation is given for a product to be placed on the market and, if necessary, the prescription and supply conditions may be subject to restrictions in accordance with the national authorities’ rules. As the active substance in this medicinal product is classified as a psychotropic substance, strict conditions apply with regard to prescription and supply.

(1) OJ L 147, 9.6.1975.

(2001/C 72 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1678/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Relay Europe

Relay Europe is responsible for distributing information on the EU within the UK.

It also sells a range of products, including clothing, umbrellas, watches, badges, flags and balloons, all emblazoned with the EU flag. In the context of the UK political debate, this is patently for consumption by supporters of ever closer union and constitutes a political statement.

What subsidies does Relay Europe receive?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Relay Europe does not receive any subsidy from the Commission.

Relay Europe is a private organisation, part of the Charlemagne group, and is under contract with the Commission representation in the United Kingdom. It provides logistics and organisational services for conferences and training sessions organised on behalf of the Commission. The contract was concluded on the basis of a call for tender won by Relay Europe in 1997. Relay Europe is not responsible for distributing information on the Union.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the Charlemagne group has another subsidiary called Euro-Style, which sells products carrying the Union flag on a purely commercial basis. It is up to consumers to decide whether or not to buy these products. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/99

(2001/C 72 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1680/00 by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: VAT on work done under contract

When an undertaking established in Member State A sends goods to Member State B for work to be done on them by an independent contractor, and then on completion of the work the goods are sent directly on behalf of the undertaking in Member State A to the buyer in Member State C:

according to the sixth VAT directive, must the undertaking in Member State A identify itself to the VAT authorities in Member State B?

If so, are there any simplifying measures to avoid the undertaking in Member State A having to identify itself in Member State B? Should a distinction be made depending on whether the contractor has invoiced the work to the undertaking in Member State A or to its final customer in Member State C?

If there are any simplifying measures, where have they been published? Have all the Member States adopted them?

If there are simplifying measures and the Commission has not published them, why not?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The first thing to bear in mind is that the concept of job processing, as referred to in former Article 5(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) (1), and the treatment of such operations as supplies of goods, was repealed on 1 January 1996 by Article 1(1) of Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing new simplification measures with regard to value added tax scope of certain exemptions and practical arrangements for implementing them (2). This means that job processing has, since 1 January 1996, been regarded as the supply of services in respect of movable tangible property.

In the example given by the Honourable Member, the place of supply of services by the job processor is determined in accordance with Article 28b(F) of the Sixth VAT Directive and depends on the person to whom the services are supplied. If the job processor supplies services to a firm registered for VAT in Member State A, the place of taxation will be Member State A. If, however, the services are invoiced to an end purchaser registered for VAT in Member State C, tax will be payable in Member State C. In either case, the person liable for the VAT is the person to whom the services are supplied, in accordance with Article 21(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive. Therefore, neither the firm registered for VAT in Member State A nor that registered in Member State C is under any obligation to make itself known to the VAT authorities in Member State B.

If, however, the goods are shipped to another Member State, the VAT implications depend on the contractual relationship between the parties concerned.

After the adoption of Directive 95/7/EC the VAT Committee reviewed the interpretation of the new provisions to check that the simplifications agreed for job processing in 1993 could still be applied, but the Member States failed to reach unanimous agreement.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. (2) OJ L 102, 5.5.1995. C 72 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1683/00 by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Vehicle inspection monopoly on Swedish market

AB Svensk bilprovning (the Swedish Motor-Vehicle Inspection Company) has a monopoly on vehicle testing in Sweden. As this monopoly is unable to keep pace with its commitments, both private and commercial vehicles are banned from the roads because they cannot be inspected within the deadlines. There is a waiting period of up to 79 days and road haulage firms lay off their workers. The solution would be competition but the Swedish Parliament has legislated against that.

Does the Commission consider that the Swedish monopoly is consistent with EU law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Honourable Member asks the Commission whether the monopoly the Swedish State has granted to AB Svensk Belprovning (hereinafter ASB) in the roadworthiness control of motor vehicles is compatible with Community law.

The Commission received a complaint concerning an alleged abuse of the monopoly of ASB and conducted a preliminary analysis of the information brought to its attention. It replied to the complainant, by letters of 15 June 1999 and of 21 February 2000, that it did not intend to take any further action in this matter unless the complainant provided further elements in support of the allegations. Since the latter letter, no such further elements were submitted.

According to the information at hand (the State auditors’ [Riksdagens revisorer] report 1999/2000:6), the Swedish government decided, back in 1994, that the monopoly should end, but later the same year postponed the implementation of this decision indefinitely. It is also worth noting that in 1998 the Swedish competition authority recommended the government either abolish the exclusivity of ASB in obligatory vehicle testing or limit its activity to this testing and thus not to allow it to compete in other related activities to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. It moreover appears that in 1998 ASB set itself the target to reduce waiting times.

The existence of the exclusive right for obligatory motor vehicle control could be put into question only if ASB could be shown to abuse its dominant position contrary to the Community competition rules. The information presented did not suffice to consider that such abuse takes place. In addition, there was no sufficient indication in the information received of at least potentially appreciable effects on trade between Member States. On the basis of these elements, the Commission did not pursue the case.

As the existence of a monopoly is not illegal as such, the Commission could consider reviewing this position only if it were presented with clear indications of an abuse of the dominant position by ASB and of at least potentially appreciable effects on trade between Member States.

(2001/C 72 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1689/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Swedish state aid to Bengtfors in Sweden

Has the Commission approved Swedish state aid of SEK 60 million to boost employment in Bengtfors following the relocation of the Lear Corporation? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/101

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

In 1999 the company Lear Corporation decided to leave the town of Bengtsfors in the region of Dalsland in Sweden. As the company was an important employer in the region, the Swedish government in a press release dated 29 March 1999 offered to grant an employment aid of up to SEK 60 million (about € 7,2 million). The aid was to be granted under ordinance 1998:996 on employment grants, which was approved by the Commission on 18 June 1997 (1).

The potential recipient company, Nisch Produkter, produces special motor vehicles for passenger transport. Under Section 2.2 of the Community framework for state aid in the motor vehicle sector (2), all aid granted under an approved aid scheme has to be notified separately, if the nominal amount of the investment project (total cost of the project) is more than € 50 million or if the total gross aid granted for the project is more than € 5 million. Consequently, if Nisch Produkter belongs to the motor vehicle sector, an aid of about € 7,2 million has to be notified to the Commission.

The Swedish authorities have informed the Commission that as of 5 June 2000 the company has not requested any aid. They expect the eventual request to concern an amount, which is lower than the amount mentioned in the press release. If the thresholds mentioned above are still exceeded, and if it is concluded that the recipient company belongs to the motor vehicle sector, the aid will have to be notified to the Commission.

(1) State aid No E 23/95, letter to the Member State SG(97) D/4397. (2) OJ C 279, 15.9.1997.

(2001/C 72 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1691/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Commission’s examination of ban on Swedish professional boxing

Has the Commission examined the question of the ban on professional boxing in Sweden? Is it a breach of the internal market rules on freedom of movement?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the honourable Member that it has had occasion to study the compatibility of the ban on professional boxing in Sweden with the principle of the freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty, which is a fundamental freedom for ensuring free movement within the internal market.

In accordance with this principle, in fact, nationals of the Member States can pursue professional activities as self-employed persons under the conditions laid down for its own nationals by the law of the country where establishment is effected.

In this connection, it is important to stress that in the absence of specific Community rules governing a specific activity each Member State is free to organise the pursuit of a professional activity in its territory (see, in particular, the Court of Justice judgment of 2 July 1984, Case 107/83, Ordre des Avocats au Barreau de Paris versus Klopp (1984)ECR2971).

According to the information available to the Commission, professional boxing in Sweden is not allowed by virtue of a law of 1 January 1970. This ban applies generally, both to Swedish nationals and to nationals of other Member States. A ban of this kind cannot therefore be regarded as contrary to the principle of the freedom of establishment. C 72 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1694/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 May 2000)

Subject: Aid to Sweden for information concerning EMU

Can the Commission provide me with a list of those Swedish organisations which have received financial aid since 1998 to disseminate information on EMU, stating the amounts involved?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (20 July 2000)

In 1998, a single subsidy in the sum of € 84 317 was allocated to the Stiptelser Sverige i Europa Foundation.

In 1999, an agreement was signed with the Swedish government authorities for a sum of € 535 855, which financed the distribution of information to businesses; the distribution of information to the public, in particular via a government office dealing with ‘questions and answers’ on the Euro; an Internet site and basic information instruments such as brochures, audio cassettes and information points in the various municipalities. In order to receive a list of the Swedish organisations which participated in this action, the Honourable Member should contact the Swedish government directly.

A similar sum has been reserved for the year 2000 for renewal of the agreement once the conditions required for its signature have been fulfilled.

(2001/C 72 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1708/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council (7 June 2000)

Subject: Continuing violation of Rule 44 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure by the Council

I wish to draw attention to Written Questions E-0811/00, E-0812/00 and E-0813/00, tabled by me on 2 March 2000 and registered on 20 March 2000, which have still not been answered by the Council, although the deadline in accordance with Parliament’s Rules of Procedure expired on 3 May 2000. Is the Council aware that in failing to answer these questions in good time it continues to infringe Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, and that I have, moreover, still received no answer to the ‘reminder’ question tabled by me on 27 April 2000 for failure to answer questions P-0644/00, E-0645/00 and E-0646/00? How can the Council justify this recurrent negligence?

Reply (26 September 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the replies to Questions E-1299/00 and E-1300/00 put to the Council by Charles Tannock.

(2001/C 72 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1709/00 by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission (29 May 2000)

Subject: Distance marketing of financial services and electronic commerce: consistency of information requirement in Commission proposals

The Commission’s proposals for the above directives include provisions on the information to be provided by suppliers to consumers. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/103

Will the Commission clarify, with particular regard to on-line providers of financial services, the exact nature of information requirements which would need to be met? In addition, what measures has the Commission taken to ensure that the information requirements in these two directives are consistent?

When finally adopted, which of the directives, if any, would take precedence for a supplier of financial services over the Internet, should the information requirements in the two directives be inconsistent?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

In the case of an on-line financial service contract provided to a consumer, the information requirements contained in any future directive (1) on the distance marketing of consumer financial services would apply.

The information requirements contained in the e-commerce directive (2) are either general (Article 5 on the provider) or specific (Article 6 and 7 §1 on commercial communications and 10 on contracts). These requirements are to be applied only when information society services are provided and, in order to avoid inconsistencies, are in addition to other information requirements established by Community law.

(1) COM(98) 468 final. (2) COM(98) 586 final.

(2001/C 72 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1714/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: La Punta agricultural area (Valencia, Spain)

In its reply to Written Question E-2709/99 (1) of 28 February 2000, the Commission stated that it intended to request information on the subject concerned.

What was the outcome of this request?

What information has the Commission received from the Spanish authorities concerning the issue raised in my question E-2709/99?

In the light of the information received, does the Commission agree that the Spanish authorities have failed to comply with directives on environmental impact assessment, particularly the obligation to consult the persons affected and to consider alternative projects? What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Albufera nature reserve is not adversely affected by the ZAL Plan?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 95.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

After replying to Written Question E-2709/99 (1) by the Honourable Member, the Commission decided to open an own-initiative investigation that was recorded under reference B-2000/2036.

While examining the case the Commission asked the Spanish authorities for their comments on the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member. C 72 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

In response to the request for information, the Spanish authorities stated that the projected logistical activities estate at the Port of Valencia had been subjected to the environmental impact assessment procedure provided for by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment (2). The environmental impact assessment of the project were issued on 14 December 1999. An impact study of the project was carried out as part of the procedure. That study was laid open to public inspection.

Since there are no alternatives it should be stressed that Directive 85/337/EEC does not require the principal customer to make a study of alternatives.

It emerges from the environmental impact statement that the potential impacts of the project on the Albufera nature reserve have been examined. The statement concludes that the project will not affect the reserve. The potential impacts on the aquifer in the Valencia plain has also been studied. Since the logistical activities estate will be mainly devoted to goods storage, packaging and labelling activities, it was concluded that the project will have no impact on the aquifer.

In view of the above it cannot be concluded that there has been any infringement of Community environmental law in this instance.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 95. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2001/C 72 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1719/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Vittorio Sgarbi (PPE-DE), Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE), Marcello Dell’Utri (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE), Raffaele Fitto (PPE-DE), Umberto Scapagnini (PPE-DE), Pier Casini (PPE-DE) and Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: The euro crisis

The undeniable crisis affecting the euro has been, and is, a cause for great concern in all the countries are participating in the single currency, and in the EU in general.

Can the Commission as a matter of urgency provide the European Parliament and, more generally, European citizens, with an adequate explanation of the measures that have been, or are to be, taken to put an end to a situation which we all hope is transitory, but which nevertheless has been dragging on for many months?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Although a good part of the depreciation in the euro since its introduction may be explained by a relatively high starting value (following a substantial appreciation in the course of 1998) and by relative cyclical developments in the euro area and the other major world regions, most observers agree that the present level of the euro, around 0.90 US dollar per euro, does not reflect present economic conditions and it is well below most estimates of a long-run equilibrium value.

Similarly large swings in the exchange rates of the world’s major currencies are not at all unusual in the current free-floating system. In normal circumstances, exchange rate movements fulfil a stabilising role. Sometimes, however, exchange rates temporarily depart from economic fundamentals. As economic growth rates in the United States and the euro area converge, one might expect the exchange rate increasingly to reflect these fundamentals, so that the euro would move up towards its ‘equilibrium rate’ without the need for a policy response. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/105

The European central bank (ECB) and the Euro-11 Group have clearly stated that the euro has a strong potential for appreciation. While such verbal support has had only limited effect so far, it should be stressed that the ECB, in full accordance with its mandate as set in the EC Treaty, is concerned by the level of the exchange rate only to the extent that it has an impact on inflation.

(2001/C 72 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1721/00 by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Council

(24 May 2000)

Subject: IGC

In his speech at Humboldt University on 12 May, the German Foreign Minister suggested that the European Parliament might be replaced by an indirectly elected chamber of national parliamentarians and a second chamber of senators along either the US or German model.

Does the Presidency share the view of Mr Fischer?

How many other members of the General Affairs Council hold that opinion?

Is the German representative on the IGC advocating such a proposal?

(26 September 2000)

(2001/C 72 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1725/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Turkey disputes the sovereign rights of Greek islands in the Aegean

Prompted by the NATO exercise ‘Dynamic Mix’, Turkey has put the spotlight back on its long-standing dispute concerning the established regime of Greek sovereignty over islets and island rocks in the Aegean. In addition, it has made accusations concerning development and environmental activities by Greece in the areas in question, many of which are funded by relevant European Union programmes.

To be specific, in its representations to the Greek Government on Wednesday, 10 May 2000 Turkey referred to ‘military and other activities by Greece on geographical formations of disputed sovereignty in the Aegean’.

Could the Commission say whether it agrees with this challenge by Turkey to Greece’s sovereign rights and whether this position accords with the spirit of the agreement which was achieved, following Greek concessions, at Helsinki, and also with Turkey’s current status as an applicant country? C 72 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

The Commission is aware of the questions regarding the Aegean Sea, which remain to be solved.

The Helsinki European Council, in its conclusions, has stated that it ‘stresses the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter and urges candidate States to make every effort to resolve any outstanding disputes and other related issues. Failing this they should within a reasonable time bring the dispute to the International Court of Justice. The European Council will review the situation relating to any outstanding disputes, in particular concerning the repercussions on the accession process and in order to promote their settlement through the International Court of Justice, at the latest by the end of 2004’.

Any efforts to include this issue in the political dialogue which takes place in the context of closer relations between Greece and Turkey, should therefore be encouraged.

(2001/C 72 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1728/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE), Ulpu Iivari (PSE) and Michel Rocard (PSE) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Safeguarding of European music copyright in the United States

According to existing legislation in the United States, restaurants, bars and similar enterprises in the country are exempted from paying copyright fees on music played at their premises. Consequently, European music played at these enterprises loses its share of copyright payments. Recently, the WTO accused the USA of violating the international copyright standards on music. To date, no measures have been taken in the United States to correct the situation. Therefore, European music production still loses a large amount of income.

What measures will the Council take to safeguard the rights of European music played in the aforementioned enterprises in the United States?

(28 September 2000)

In the matter referred to by the honourable Parliamentarians, i.e. Section 110(5) of the United States Copyright Act as amended by the ‘Fairness in Music Licensing Act’ (enacted on 27 October 1998), the EC and its Member States have consistently acted to bring about changes to this law which would ensure that the interests of European singers and songwriters would be effectively protected in the United States.

In particular, in the framework of the WTO, the EC and its Member States have requested and obtained the establishment of a panel under Article 6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (‘DSU’) and Article 64.1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS Agreement’). The panel has made a report which was circulated on 15 June 2000.

In the report, the panel concludes that parts of the relevant US legislation do not meet the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement and recommends that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body request the United States to bring its Act into conformity with US obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.

A party to the dispute has sixty days from the date of circulation of the report to appeal to the WTO Appellate Body. This period will elapse on 14 August 2000 and the Council will then be able to take stock of the situation and assess, notably through the Article 133 Committee, how best to pursue European interests in this matter, in accordance with WTO rules. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/107

(2001/C 72 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1741/00 by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: The IGC

In a speech in Brussels on 10 May, the French Minister with responsibility for European Affairs promised to work ‘actively and in good faith’ with the European Parliament.

In that case, why does Mr Moscovici believe that Parliament is not to be trusted with decisions about its own working arrangements?

What does he believe to be the essential qualities of a venue of an international parliament?

How does the Strasbourg venue assist the efficiency and effectiveness of the European Parliament?

(28 September 2000)

As the Honourable Member will appreciate, the Council can only speak on specific matters where it has reached a collective view or decision. As far as the venue of the European Parliament is concerned, this is laid down in paragraph (a) of the Treaty protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions. It would be entirely inappropriate for the Council as an institution to comment on views expressed by any individual member.

(2001/C 72 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1744/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Haemophiliacs

Would the Commission provide the following information on haemophiliacs in EU countries:

1. The number/percentage of haemophiliacs in each Member State

2. The percentage of haemophiliacs in each Member State infected with the HIV virus

3. The percentage of haemophiliacs in each Member State infected with the Hepatitis C virus

4. Which Member States pay compensation to haemophiliacs who have been given either of these viruses through contaminated blood products.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

The Commission does not collect information on the number of haemophilia patients in each Member State, the percentage infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), nor the percentage infected with hepatitis C. The incidence of haemophilia in the general population, however, is estimated to be approximately 1 in 10 000.

It is understood that compensation or financial assistance has been provided to people with haemophilia who are infected with HIV through blood products in nearly all the Member States. C 72 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

In relation to hepatitis C virus (HCV) compensation, an information compiled by the European Haemo- philia Consortium in 1999 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2001/C 72 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1745/00 by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Transport

Now that the Rail Europ Card for pensioners which, hitherto, allowed them to travel at a reduced fare is being abolished, what system does the Commission intend to set up to replace it with a view to providing pensioners with the possibility of cheaper travel by rail in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

The Commission wishes to underline that the Rail Europ Card the Honourable Member mentions was not introduced by the Commission nor was the Commission involved in this scheme of reduced fares. The Rail Europ Card was a special fare offered by rail operators. If these operators feel that this type of fare is no longer commercially viable they are free to abolish it. The Commission wishes to recall in this context that Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways (1) obliges Member States to render their railway undertakings independent as regards, inter alia, fares. The Commission has no plans to introduce any scheme that would give pensioners an entitlement to rail travel at reduced fares.

Member States may offer travel at reduced fares to senior citizens as long as the rules on public services, where they apply, are respected. The Commission has no such powers.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2001/C 72 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1751/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Location of a high-voltage underground electrical power line in a residential area

Residents of the municipality of Rio, who have appealed to the State Council, protest that a decision has been taken to run the main South Greece-Pelopponese high-voltage electrical power line along the Phidias road to the area of Kastellokampos, where two underground 175 000 volt cables will be placed at a depth of only 1 metre.

The cables will pass very close to houses in a purely residential area and this is causing serious concerns about the health of the residents, threatened by future carcinogens. In view of this, can the Commission:

1. say whether the necessary technical studies and environmental impact assessments have been carried out and whether all the necessary permits have been granted for the work?

2. intervene to bring about a review of the decision to route the line through a residential area and a search for an alternative solution that will not pose a threat to the health of the residents, and will in addition safeguard the balance of the environment? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/109

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (19 July 2000)

The placing of underground electricity cables is not covered by Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (1).

However, in response to a complaint received recently the Commission will examine the environmental impact of the whole DEI (public electricity company) project concerning energy transfer in the region.

(1) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 73, 14.3.1997).

(2001/C 72 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1752/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (31 May 2000)

Subject: Numbers of persons holding licences to drive motor vehicles

Will the Commission please state 1. The total number of persons currently holding full licences to drive motor vehicles, in each EU Member State, 2. The number of new full licences to drive motor vehicles issued in each EU Member State, in the most recent year for which statistics are available.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (11 July 2000)

The Commission does not have a complete set of the relevant statistics, and indeed in some Member States, where licences are or were issued locally, there are no complete statistics.

(2001/C 72 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1760/00 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (31 May 2000)

Subject: Quality of water for human consumption on the Azores

It has been reported that the Commission has urged the Portuguese authorities to take steps to ensure compliance with Community legislation on the quality of water destined for human consumption on the Azores. It appears that the Commission acted in response to an investigation carried out on the islands which revealed that the standards laid down in Council Directive 80/778/EEC (1) were not being met.

Can the Commission: 1. Confirm these reports? 2. If so, can it: provide information on the terms and number of warnings already issued to the Portuguese authorities (national and regional) in this connection; outline the content of the opinion forwarded to the Portuguese authorities; say what further action it intends to take on the matter?

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980, p. 11. C 72 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has indeed asked the Portuguese Government on several occasions to take the action needed to implement Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (1) in the Azores Autonomous Region.

As made public in its press release of 12 May 2000, the Commission is able to inform the Honourable Member that the reasoned opinion of which it informed Portugal as part of infringement procedure No 98/ 5083 concerned the failure of the Azores regional authorities to adopt the provisions needed in order to implement Directive 80/778/EEC in the Autonomous Region and failure to keep to the limit values provided for in the above-mentioned Directive in respect of the water intended for human consumption used in the municipality of Ribeira Grande.

The Commission must point out to the Honourable Member that it attaches prime importance to the proper implementation of the Directives on the quality of water for human consumption and that, therefore, it will not cease to use all of the means available to it, and more particularly continuing with the infringement procedure referred to above, in order to require the Portuguese authorities to take the action needed in order correctly to implement Directive 80/778/EEC in the Azores Autonomous Region.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980; as last amended by OJ L 224, 3.9.1993.

(2001/C 72 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1761/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Travel to the elections in Greece

Elections were held in Greece on 9 April 2000. Since Greek citizens living abroad may not vote by post, Olympic Airways offered air tickets at greatly reduced prices to enable as many Greeks as possible to vote.

1. Is the Commission aware of the above?

2. Can the Commission say whether the offer was valid for Greek citizens only or whether all Union citizens were able to purchase these reduced tickets?

3. Can the Commission indicate who paid the difference between the reduced and the ordinary fare and how much this amounted to?

4. On what routes was this offer available?

5. Does the Commission consider that this constituted a distortion of competition?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services (1), airlines are free to set their own fares. Due to the fact that Greek citizens living abroad have to return to Greece to vote, the Commission understands, from the information available, that this was a charter arrangement between the airline and the political parties. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/111

In order to assess whether this practice may be contrary to Community law provisions, the Commission is in the process of examining the circumstances of this charter arrangement. It has thus written to both the Greek government and Olympic Airways to establish whether the arrangement, when taking into account other airlines flying to the same destinations in Greece, was appropriate.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2001/C 72 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1763/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Crisis in the olive oil market proposal to amend Regulation (EEC) No. 2568/91 and establishment of a Community database

The statement by the Commission, made in its answer to my question of 25 January 2000, that the quantities of olive oil imported are not sufficient to disrupt the Community market overlooks completely the true cause of the problem, which lies in the restrictions introduced by Regulation (EEC) 2568/91, which does not allow for an analysis to determine whether hazelnut oil is present in olive oil imported into Italy where the proportions of the two oils are duly calculated.

Even more baffling is the Commission’s assertion that the blending of olive oils of different origins is not forbidden and may even be essential for oils from certain regions in order to provide consumers with the quality of oil they require. It is the responsibility of European law Council Directives 89/395/EEC (1) and 89/396/EEC (2) of 14 June 1989 and Regulation (EEC) No 2815/98 (3) to ensure the integrity of a food product in terms of its labelling and health aspects and it is also vital to provide consumers with correct information on the product they are purchasing, enabling them to choose freely the type of oil they want (PDO, PGI, registered designation of origin, normal extravirgin, corn oil, other seed oils, etc.).

This is confirmed by the fact that the EU itself, by recognising some 20 PDO oils and one PGI oil in Italy, has established the principle that not only is the identification of a geographical region of origin not a ‘limit’ that can be exceeded by ‘blending’, but also represents an advantage. It should also be added that it is now possible to identify scientifically the origin of an oil and all its characteristics by means of gas- chromatographic analysis of methylic esters and components of the unsaponifiable fraction and combined pyrolysis mass spectrometry analysis.

In the light of the above considerations, what are the Commissions intentions as regards the amendment of Commission Regulation (EEC) 2568/91 of 11 July 1991 or the adoption of a new regulation and the setting up of a Community olive oil database as a single analytical instrument capable of determining with scientific accuracy the geographical origin of an oil?

(1) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 17. (2) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 21. (3) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998, p. 56.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2000)

In the opinion of chemical experts, there is as yet no analytical method for detecting hazelnut oil in olive oil. The Commission is encouraging research on this, and the signs are that a (perhaps partial) solution is imminent. As soon as a reliable method is available, the Commission will adopt the necessary changes to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 of 11 July 1991 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive- residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis (1). C 72 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Current statistical methods for determining olive oils’ geographical origin via a database contain inherent inaccuracies which may cause oils to be wrongly classified, but the Commission is following with great interest the research being undertaken into improving those methods.

(1) OJ L 248, 5.9.1991.

(2001/C 72 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1764/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Freedom of the press in Russia

Does the Council believe that the search carried out by the FSB (the former KGB) in the offices of the independent MediaMost Press Group is an indication of a new climate, 10 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and some years after the abolition of Communism in Russia?

Is the Council concerned about this attack on the freedom of the press and on MediaMost and its television station, NTV, whose President, Vladimir Goussinsky, is also an important figure in the Russian Jewish Community?

Will the Council ask the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, to ensure freedom of expression and to denounce such practices, unacceptable in a state based on the rule of law, is a member of the Council of Europe and which hopes, one day, to join the European Union?

(26 September 2000)

The Council noted with concern the search carried out by the FSB in the offices of the MediaMost Press Group. It has repeatedly stressed to the Russian authorities, notably at the EU-Russia Summit on 29 May, that freedom and independence of the media are an essential component of any democratic, free and open society. Respect for fundamental democratic principles is a cornerstone of the partnership between the EU and Russia and an essential element of the PCA.

Support for consolidation of Russian public institutions, particularly its executive, legislative and judicial bodies in accordance with democratic principles is among the principal objectives of the EU’s Common Strategy on Russia. The Council will continue supporting democratic reforms in Russia and closely following developments in this area, with particular attention to the freedom of the media.

(2001/C 72 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1768/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: The Hallmarking of Precious Metals

At present, there is no harmonisation of weight limits above which hallmarking is compulsory. In the UK it is 7,78 gm for sterling silver, whereas in Holland it is 1 gm, causing problems when selling goods there, even when they have been marked by the Assay Office in Britain.

Would the Commission give further consideration to a practical solution to this, which would be to harmonise the weight limit throughout the EU, thus creating a level platform in the supply of precious metal jewellery? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/113

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

As already mentioned in previous answers to written questions from Parliament (1), no substantive progress is being made at the level of the Council on the Commission’s proposal for a directive on precious metals (2). In the light of further analysis of the ruling of the Court of justice in the Houtwipper case (3), it seems excluded to impose, on the basis of Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty, a system of mutual recognition of national conformity assessment procedures based on the manufacturer’s declaration and on hall marking. Given the continued stalemate concerning this issue, the Commission intends to verify with Member States the scope for a breakthrough in harmonization of national law.

(1) E-3158/98 of Mrs Ferrer (OJ C 207, 21.7.1999), E-3139/98 of Mrs Miranda de Lage (OJ C 142, 21.5.1999) and E-3029/98 of Mr Arias Cañete (OJ C 135, 14.5.1999). (2) OJ C 209, 29.7.1994. (3) Judgement of 15.9.1994 in Case C-293/93.

(2001/C 72 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1771/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Rail services in Ireland

Bearing in mind the EU’s responsibility in developing a common transport policy incorporating rail and road and other modes of transport, what are the Commission’s powers in ensuring that Member States invest sufficiently in rail services, and what are its views on Iarnrod Eireann’s decision not to reopen Monasterevin railway station in Co. Kildare, Ireland, despite the fact that a demand for one exists amongst car commuters driving to Dublin on a daily basis?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Through the dedicated budget for Trans-European networks and through the structural funds, the Commission is able to co-finance studies and investments in rail infrastructure for projects defined in the guidelines for the development of the Trans-European transport network (TEN-T). In Ireland, the main railway line between Dublin and Portarlington (Galway/Limerich/Cork/Tralee) is defined as part of the outline map of the TEN rail network. In principle upgrading and construction projects on this route could be eligible for Community financial support, subject to meeting the criteria and priorities established in the TEN guidelines.

The choice of investment priorities, whether or not Community financial assistance is requested, is the responsibility of the national authorities alone.

In general terms, the Commission pursues the policy objective of promoting rail to become an efficient transport mode and to tackle current transport related problems such as congestion and environmental externalities. In order to implement these objectives the Commission has made proposals to adapt the regulatory framework appropriately, for instance in the area of market opening and infrastructure charging principles. As to the question of reopening Monasterevin railway station the Commission takes the view that the investment decisions relating to rail commuter infrastructure should be left to the appropriate authorities at the local or regional level. C 72 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1772/00 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Payment of compensation and collection of levies on the basis of unconfirmed data which was not notified to the Commission

On the basis of the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) the Italian Government arranged for the payment of compensation for the milk years 1997/98 and 1998/99 in respect of levels of milk production far higher than those notified to the Commission previously. The Italian authorities maintain that they will not notify the Commission of the revised figures until a number of ongoing legal disputes have been settled. It also emerges that a large number of first purchasers, obliged to declare both monthly production and the annual total, have not subscribed to and hence confirmed the changes made by the authorities to the production quantities declared originally.

Can the Commission therefore say:

whether the calculation of the levy and the resulting revenue made on the basis of hypothetical production levels differing from those duly notified to the Commission was in accordance with the legislation currently in force;

whether the Italian authorities behaviour was not unlawful, in that they paid out compensation on the basis of data which was not confirmed by the first purchasers themselves;

whether it is lawful for those purchasers to deduct enormous sums from dairy farmers, although they themselves have not confirmed the data modified as a result of disputes;

whether it is lawful for the Italian authorities to declare obviously false production levels to the Commission and, reserving the right to await the decisions of the courts before notifying the revised data, to subject the producers to punitive levies dependent on compensation based not on real data but on uncertified putative production levels;

what administrative procedures the Commission has adopted for the definitive establishment of the production levels declared by Italy taking into account the judgements of the administrative courts and for the consequent financial regulation of the burdens on the Italian budget, including possible sanctions?

(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Even if operation of the ‘milk quota’ scheme gives rise to numerous disputes in Italy, she is still required under Community rules to take all necessary action to collect within the specified time limits the additional levy on any milk deliveries in excess of her overall quantity. In such cases the levy is due from the Member State and must be collected from producers within the set time limit and under the Member State’s arrangements. Disputed cases relating to collection of the levy from producers cannot defer collection from the State. These cases fall within the competence of the Italian courts. Consequently, and without prejudice to verifications to be made as part of the accounts clearance procedure, the Italian authorities appear to be acting in line with the Community rules.

The clearance of accounts procedure for the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund serves to determine the exact amount of levy due resulting from the checks carried out by the national authorities and the Commission. Any financial corrections can be prescribed in the course of the clearance procedure. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/115

(2001/C 72 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1774/00 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(7 June 2000)

Subject: Net contributors in the European Union

Which countries are net contributors and which are net recipients in the European Union?

How are the contributions by individual Member States calculated in the European Union?

What are the payments by and to the Member States for the period 1995 to 2000?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

There is no universally accepted definition of the budgetary balance of the Member States in the Community budget and, consequently, it is often difficult to classify Member States, formally speaking, into groups of net recipients and net contributors. This is especially difficult for those Member States whose balance is very close to zero with the result that changes in the concept of the budgetary balance used turn a Member State from a net recipient to a net contributor. A clear example is the case of Belgium which, when including administrative Community expenditure in the data, appears to be a net recipient but is a net contributor when administrative Community expenditure is excluded. These and other difficulties with the definition of the budgetary balance have been discussed in the Commission report on the operation of the own resources system which is available on the Europa server in the World Wide Web, in the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg19/en/agenda2000/ownresources/.

The report also includes tables of own resources contributions to and receipts from the Community budget by Member State as well as estimates of budgetary balances according to different definitions for the period 1992-1997 or 1998. Updated estimates of budgetary balances to 1998 can be found in the statistical annex of the June 1999 Commission services report on the allocation of 1998 EU operating expenditure by Member State, also available on the Europa service in the World Wide Web, in the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg19/pdf/agenda2000/statdepenses98pdf.

The rules governing the own resources system are set out in the 1994 own resources Decision currently in force (a new own resources decision will come into force on 1 January 2001). Community own resources are the so-called traditional own resources (TOR) essentially customs duties and agricultural levies collected by the Member States and transferred to the Community budget after withholding 10 % of the amounts collected to cover collection costs, the VAT resource consisting of VAT revenues determined by the application of a call rate on the harmonised VAT base of each Member State, and the gross national product (GNP) resource which is called according to a rate necessary to balance the Community budget. The own resources contributions of the Member States are determined in the framework of the preparation of the annual Community budget. Annual own resources contributions can be read from the Community draft budget as well as from the final budget.

The latest data available for own resources contributions concern the year 2000 budget and the year 2001 preliminary draft budget and can be read directly from the budget documents. Data for expenditure by Member State are only available up to 1998 and can be found in the documents available at the World Wide Web addresses mentioned previously. C 72 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1775/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Taxation of interest on foreign accounts and dividends on foreign shares in Austria

In connection with Austria’s accession to the European Union, the country’s tax laws have been amended many times for the purposes of implementing directives and ensuring fundamental freedoms.

Under sections 97 and 37(1) and (4) of the Austrian Income Tax Law, however, dividends on foreign shares are subject to a tax rate of up to 50 %, compared with a rate of 25 % for domestic shares. This also applies, above all, to holders of foreign accounts. Pursuant to the aforementioned provisions, dividends, interest and other earnings from domestic shares as well as interest earned on deposits with domestic credit institutions, even if based on banking operations, are subject to a capital yields tax rate of 25 % representing the taxpayer’s final tax liability in respect of those payments, and are thus excluded from income tax assessment. However, on request, such income may be included in assessment, in which case it is subject to a half rate of tax, with taxation at the half rate not necessarily always the more favourable alternative.

On the other hand, dividends, interest and other earnings from foreign shares and income from deposits with credit institutions are not subject to tax withheld at source representing the taxpayer’s final tax liability. They are therefore subject to income tax at the full rate, not qualifying for a half rate of tax.

These measures mean that Austria is imposing tax at double the rate on recipients of foreign dividends as well as on all savers who do not have their money in a domestic bank.

Does the Commission take the view that the provisions in question comply with the rules on the free movement of capital in the EU, and in particular Article 56(1) in conjunction with Article 58(1)(a) and (b) and (3) of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

According to Austrian tax legislation, dividends (and other income from equity participation) from foreign companies, as well as interest income received from foreign credit institutions, are added to other income accrued by a natural person, resident in Austria, and taxed together with his other income.

If such capital income stems instead from Austrian companies or Austrian credit institutions, a withholding tax of 25 % is applied. Moreover, the Austrian taxpayer may request a tax refund if the income tax rate applicable to his income level is lower than 25 %.

Concerning dividends from domestic companies, the Austrian taxpayer may furthermore request that they be taxed at half the tax rate applicable to his overall income including the dividend income. This may yet be more favourable than the above-mentioned option.

This issue is presently pending before the Court of justice under Article 234 (ex Article 177) of the EC Treaty (case C-516/99). In its observations submitted to the Court, the Commission has concluded that the above provisions of the Austrian tax legislation constitute an unjustified restriction of the free movement of capital and are thus incompatible with Article 56 (ex Article 73b) of the EC Treaty. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/117

(2001/C 72 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1776/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Substandard European Union publications

An article headlined ‘Full funding for’Quick Start Package‘in South East Europe’ published in European Union Newsletter No. 9 (Sarajevo, April 2000 Delegation of the European Commission in Bosnia and Herzegovina) makes no reference whatsoever to the Egnatia Highway, an EU-funded development project which will be highly instrumental in bringing the Balkan peninsula out of its isolation and under- development. The map accompanying the article shows the ports of Thessaloniki and Alexandropoulos together with their planned links to the rest of the European network but fails, bizarrely, to show the Egnatia Highway.

Is the Council aware that by publishing such unsatisfactory and absurd reports, its departments responsible for the promotion of EU projects, which further development inside and outside the Union, are essentially undermining the significance of those very projects and the impression they make on European public opinion?

What measures will the Council take to monitor the officials responsible for the above omission to ensure that there is no repetition of such blunders in the future?

(28 September 2000)

As the Honourable Member has indicated, the publication to which he draws the Council’s attention was published by the European Commission.

While the Council regrets any errors that may slip into publications by European Union institutions and bodies, it cannot adopt a position on a publication of which it is not the author.

In the case in point the question ought to have been put to the Commission.

(2001/C 72 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1782/00 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Council of European Energy Regulators

The Council of European Energy Regulators was recently created. It is their role to meet for the sharing of information and views, and they contribute to the proper development of the European electricity and gas sectors.

It is important, however, that they also make a contribution to discussions on:

price discrimination

electronic red-lining

energy efficiency, energy savings

development of renewable energy sources

quality of services C 72 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

transnational corporations and concentration of market power

public service obligations.

All these issues have an impact on individuals, as residential consumers, and on employment.

Does the Commission agree that the Council of European Energy Regulators should begin discussions with trade unions, environmental, consumer and other civil-society organisations in order to develop open and democratic mechanisms that allow the Council to benefit from the views and experience of these organisations?

Does it believe that a similar dialogue should be held in the regulatory bodies at national level?

Does it support the creation of an advisory board to the Council which would include representatives of these organisations?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

1. The Council of European energy regulators (CEER) has been created to provide an adequate framework for the work of the national regulators which touch on subjects which are of interest to the internal market and more in particular to promote the development of efficient electricity and gas markets in Europe. Information exchange and assistance among its members is one of its main tasks. The CEER is open to information from all parties, which would mainly mean European groupings of organisations to which the Honourable Member refers, but also industry and others interested in the internal electricity and gas markets.

Even though the work of the regulators centres mainly around tariff setting and licensing, the subject of quality of service has already been taken up by the regulators and the Commission. The Commission, based on information from the regulators and other relevant parties, will issue a communication on public service levels in the electricity and gas, and also the transport sector.

The other subjects mentioned by the Honourable Member in the introduction to the questions are part of the work of the regulators, insofar as the subjects fall under their competence.

2. The regulatory bodies at national level regularly organise consultation rounds on subjects they regulate. All interested organisations can bring their opinions forward in the framework of such consultation procedures and it is important that the views of all interested parties are heard.

3. Whilst the Commission believes strongly that, in order to carry out its responsibilities effectively, it must ensure a wide consultation of interested parties on issues within its competence, it is, however, for the CEER to decide how to undertake this consultation in the most effective and appropriate manner.

(2001/C 72 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1783/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Compulsory use of typewriters

Is the Commission aware that its departments are insisting that applications for the Exploratory Award and CRAFT must be typewritten?

Is this a considered policy? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/119

If typewriters are now required of small businesses, will the Commission please state how many typewriters it uses itself?

Will it make rooms available, possibly in the Commission offices in national capitals, in which business people will be able to find typewriters with which to fill in their Commission application forms, should they have unfortunately decided to retire their old typewriters?

Is the Commission of the opinion that typewriters are likely to make a comeback at the expense of the word processor? If so, why?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

The information package related to exploratory awards and CRAFT says that the application forms must be completed by typewriter or computer. Since the application forms are ‘interactive’ in the sense that they are available on the Cordis web site, they can be downloaded and filled out by computer. This option, which does not necessitate the use of a typewriter, is used by most applicants.

(2001/C 72 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1786/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Inclusion of the European flag in the liveries worn by aircraft belonging to airlines from Community countries

The airlines belonging to the EU Member States do not seem particularly keen to include the European flag, alongside their respective national flags, as part of their livery, since only a very small number of the airlines concerned have taken such a step.

Since all airlines from an EU Member State should ideally demonstrate that they belong to a body which represents Europe throughout the world, consideration should be given to encouraging all EU airlines (by means of appropriate legislation) to include the European flag alongside the appropriate national flag on their aircraft.

Does the Commission think that it should seek an agreement with the various Member States concerning legislation designed to ensure that airlines apply the European flag to their aircraft?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The issue of airlines including the European flag on their aircraft does not fall within the scope of Community law. The Commission has, however, suggested to airlines established in the Member States that they display the European flag on the fuselage of their aircraft. It notes that some airlines have done so.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers given to Written Questions E-2629/00 (1) and E-583/95 by Mr Fernández-Albor (2) on this matter.

(1) OJ C 136, 27.5.1991. (2) OJ C 196, 31.7.1995. C 72 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1799/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Withdrawal from EMU

Will the Council guarantee that any Member State may freely withdraw from Economic and Monetary Union by giving 12 months’ notice, for example?

(26 September 2000)

As was stated in the reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-0771/00, the Treaty contains no specific provisions concerning the withdrawal of a Member State either from the European Union in general or from the third stage of EMU.

(2001/C 72 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1801/00 by Christian Rovsing (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Unlawful provision of state aid to Post Danmark by the Danish government

1. Is the Commission aware that the Danish government is providing state aid to Post Danmark for the postal distribution of newspapers and periodicals at especially low prices?

2. Is it also aware that the rules governing the relevant aid scheme were substantially amended by the Danish government in its Decree of 23 February 2000, which entered into force on 1 April 2000, the result being that aid is now provided on a discriminatory basis, with some newspapers and periodicals benefiting at others’ expense?

3. Can it confirm that the amendments to the aid scheme have been notified to it for approval in accordance with Article 88 (3) of the EC Treaty?

4. If not, does it agree that the aid scheme is unlawful under the EC Treaty?

5. Does it also agree that the scheme, even if it has been notified, is incompatible with the common market, when it clearly and significantly distorts competition between newspapers and periodicals that receive state aid and those that do not?

6. What action does it intend to take with regard to this aid scheme?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2000)

The Commission is not aware of state aid being granted by Denmark to Post Danmark for the distribution of press at reduced tariffs, nor is it aware of the amendments introduced by the Danish authorities by the Decree of 23 February 2000, as reported by the Honourable Member.

The measure reported by the Honourable Member has not been notified to the Commission for prior approval under the Article 88(3) (ex Article 93) EC Treaty procedure. As such, should it contain state aid in the sense of Article 87 (ex Article 92) EC Treaty, such aid would have to be considered as illegal. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/121

As regards the alleged presence of state aid and its compatibility with the common market, the Commission can not prejudge its position, as it is not aware of the nature of the reported scheme.

The Commission will write to the Danish authorities for more information.

(2001/C 72 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1802/00 by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Ozgur case

The Turkish Cypriot politician Ozker Ozgur is to be committed to trial on 26 May by the authorities of the Cypriot territory under Turkish occupation, on the charge of ‘incitement to rebellion’. In fact, proceedings are being taken against Mr Ozgur, together with the editor and staff of the newspaper Avrupa, because in his articles he has repeatedly opposed the expulsion of citizens from their houses so that these may be used by Turkish soldiers. Mr Ozgur states that he refuses to be tried by an ‘occupation’ court. This case forms one of a series of indirect interventions by the Turkish military establishment, designed to maintain Mr Denktash as leader of the Turkish Cypriot people. As well as the wider issue of the functioning of democracy, Mr Ozgur’s case undoubtedly constitutes a flagrant violation of individual rights and, of course, freedom of expression.

Does the Commission intend to examine the question of the continued violation of individual and human rights in the sector of Cyprus occupied by Turkish troops, and how does it intend to intervene in order to ensure a fair trial?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2000)

The Commission is well aware of the recent committal to trial of the Turkish Cypriot politician Ozker Ozgur raised by the Honourable Member and will be following developments closely. The same is the case for the editor and staff of the newspaper Avrupa. Each year the Commission produces a regular report on each candidate country reviewing progress in the light of the Copenhagen criteria, including human rights. In the case of Cyprus there is a special section dealing with the situation in the northern part of the island (1). It is likely that the cases mentioned by the Honourable Member will be dealt with in this year’s report due to be published in autumn 2000.

(1) COM(1999) 502 final, 13.10.99, page 11.

(2001/C 72 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1803/00 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Ferry services in remote areas

I am grateful to the Commission for its helpful and courteous answer to my Written Question E-0999/00 about island ferry services. Further to that, I now pose the following questions:

1. Is the Commission aware of the geographical configuration of the west coast of Scotland, where long sea lochs (‘fjords’) create isolated peninsulas to which vehicular access is only possible over long and twisting roads and mountain passes? C 72 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

2. Does it agree that it is environmentally undesirable to force goods and passenger traffic to use such roads where much shorter sea crossings by ferry might be provided?

3. Does it agree that there are also serious safety, health, and public welfare grounds for the provision of affordable ferry services, both passenger and vehicular, on such sea crossings?

4. Does it therefore agree that it would be proper and reasonable to treat peninsulas such as Kintyre, Cowal and Roseneath as equivalent to islands for the purposes of applying Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 on Maritime Transport?

5. Does it agree that it would be lawful for the Scottish Executive, the responsible authority in the UK, to invite tenders for ‘public service contracts’ in respect of ferry services to these and other similar peninsulas?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

The Commission is fully aware of the geographical configuration of the West coast of Scotland.

As explained in its communication on the development of short sea shipping in Europe (1) the Commission also takes the view that maritime transport should be developped as it constitutes an environmentally friendly and safe alternative to road transport. However, short sea shipping cannot be developed in breach of Community law.

As far as maritime services within Member States are concerned, the relevant text is Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (2). Member States adopted this Regulation because they shared the view that the abolition of restrictions on the provision of maritime transport services within Member States was necessary for the establishment of the internal market.

The imposition of public service obligations restricts the freedom to provide services. Therefore, it was decided that Member States could only impose public service obligations in order to ensure the adequacy of regular transport services to, from and between islands and not between ports located on the mainland (see Article 4 paragraph 1 of the Regulation). This provision has to be interpreted strictly as it is an exception to the general principle of freedom to provide services. For this reason, the Commission will only accept that when Member States have demonstrated that there is a real need for public service obligations, they may impose public service obligations on a maritime route to, from and between islands where there is no land alternative.

(1) COM(1999) 317 final. (2) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992.

(2001/C 72 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1812/00 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Studies of the radiological effects on Ireland of the operation of Sellafield

Will the Commission ask the relevant British, Northern Ireland and Irish safety authorities for copies of all studies undertaken since 1980 on the radiological effects on Ireland of the operation of Sellafield, and will it establish a review panel to assess the reliability and current relevance of these reports? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/123

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

While Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty allows the Commission to give an opinion on whether the planned disposal of radioactive waste is liable to have an effect on other Member States, Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty requires Member States to communicate to the Commission information on actual levels of radioactivity in the air, water and soil resulting from the continuous monitoring carried out under Article 35 of the Treaty. Such information is received on a regular basis.

Additional studies undertaken by national authorities, e.g. on the radiological effects on Ireland of the operation of Sellafield, are not required under the Euratom Treaty or its derived legislation. Hence the Commission has no responsibility to review and assess such studies with regard to their reliability and contemporary relevance.

The Commission will nevertheless ask the authorities of Ireland and of the United Kingdom whether such studies are available and how the reports can be obtained. In addition, the Commission is launching a comprehensive two year study to assess levels of radioactivity in North European waters, on the basis of all available information. This study will update a similar assessment (Marína) concluded around 15 years ago. The results of national studies and assessments will be taken into account.

(2001/C 72 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1815/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Labelling of turron

Some doubts have arisen in Spain with regard to the interpretation of the provisions of Directives 97/4 (1) and 1990/10 (2) on the labelling of food products and their transposition into Spanish law. More specifically, manufacturers of turron do not know whether the indication of the quantities of ingredients (almonds, honey and egg white) should refer to the quantities as used in the manufacturing process or to the final product since the manufacturing process itself results in a certain wastage, particularly of almonds.

Pursuant to the said Directives, what should the indication of the quantities of ingredients of turron refer to, to the quantities used or to the quantities in the final product?

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 21. (2) OJ L 69, 16.3.1999, p. 22.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Article 7(4)of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (1) (which includes the provisions set out in Directive 97/4/EC) states that the quantity of an ingredient or category of ingredients used in the manufacturing or preparation of a food product shall correspond to the quantity of the ingredient or ingredients at the time of its/their use.

The derogations provided for in Commission Directive 1999/10/EC of 8 March 1999 apply to specific cases such as volatile ingredients, ingredients used in concentrated or dehydrated form and reconstituted during manufacturing, or food products which have lost a considerable amount of water during manufacturing. As regards all other ingredients, the quantity used in the manufacturing process should, in principle, be the same as or very similar to the quantity in the final product, expressed as a percentage of the total weight of the product. C 72 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

The Commission has no information about the technical reasons regarding the wastage of almonds during the manufacturing of ‘turron’, nor estimates regarding this wastage. Therefore, the Commission believes that the quantity of almonds indicated on the label of ‘turron’ should be more or less the same as the quantity actually contained in the product, unless specific technical considerations justify the application of the derogations provided for by Directive 1999/10/EC.

(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

(2001/C 72 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1816/00 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Recovery of sums paid out under Article 29 of Law No 427/1993 on unadulterated polyethylene

By virtue of Decree-Law No 331 of 1993, converted into Law No 427/1993, the Italian Government introduced a levy of 10 % on unadulterated polyethylene. However, there were serious doubts about the legitimacy of this law from the outset. At Community level the Commission instituted twofold infringement proceedings (94/4232 pursuant to Article 199 of the EEC Treaty) on the grounds of a blatant distortion of the Community market caused by the difference in the tax base for Italian goods (the value of the raw materials) and for Community goods (the value of the manufactured product) and by the existence of State aid in the event of the tax revenue being used.

Italy was able to avoid losing the case on the grounds that the tax was of a temporary nature, the fact that it did not use the revenue and that it undertook to eliminate the difference in the tax base. In the meantime, the adoption of Legislative Decree No 22/1997 abolished the tax, but without solving the problem of the destination of the sums paid up to that moment and unused because of the veto imposed by the Commission.

The Italian Ministry for the Treasury, when the matter was referred to it, pointed out that because of administrative obstacles caused by the Commission’s veto, the revenue already entered in the accounts for the previous years could not be earmarked for the intended purpose (immediate full refunds payable to those who had paid the sums, or to the consortium Polieco, set up pursuant to Article 48 of Legislative Decree No 22/1997, the logical recipient of the funds by virtue of the institutional duties conferred on it, namely the recovery and recycling of polyethylene waste).

Since a law which conflicts with Community law must be repealed retroactively (cf. CJEC 12/7/1973, case 70/72) can the Commission say:

1. what steps it intends to take and what others it will ask the Italian State to take with a view to recovering the sums paid out pursuant to Article 29 of Law No 427/1993?

2. whether it does not consider it appropriate to make provision for compensation, even if only indirect, for agricultural producers, the only sector actually adversely affected by the tax on polyethylene (cf. CJEC 7/2/1993, case 39/72)?

(2001/C 72 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1989/00 by Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Recovery of sums paid under Article 29a of Law 427/93 on non-recycled polyethylene

Italy introduced a 10 % charge on non-recycled polyethylene by means of decree-law No 331 of 1993, later incorporated in law No 427/93. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/125

The Commission subsequently launched an infringement procedure (94/4232) on two counts: distortion of the common market by establishing a different tax base for national as opposed to Community purposes, and the question of State aid in the event of the proceeds of the charge being reutilised.

Meanwhile, the Italian Government’s adoption of legislative decree no. 22/1997 on waste abolished the charge, but did not solve the problem of what to do with the sums that had already been paid but had not been used because of the Commission’s intervention.

In view of the fact that any legislation that infringes Community law must be repealed with retrospective effect:

1. Could the Commission state whether it can take measures directly, and if so which, and whether it intends to urge Italy to take measures, and if so which, with a view to recovering the sums paid?

2. Does the Commission consider that it would be appropriate to provide compensation, if only indirectly, for farmers, the only sector really affected by the charge on polyethylene?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1816/00 and P-1989/00 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

The Commission confirms that the infringement proceedings initiated against Italy under Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty for having introduced a special 10 % levy on the price of unadulterated polyethylene have been shelved following the repeal of the law concerned.

The Court of Justice has consistently ruled that charges levied in breach of Community law must be refunded. However, the repayment of sums wrongly collected is governed by the procedures and arrangements of national law, which may not be stricter than those applied in cases not involving Community law or make repayment excessively difficult or indeed impossible.

Similarly, in accordance with the well-established case-law of the Court of Justice, Community law demands that the Member State responsible for imposing charges incompatible with that law compensate those concerned for the injury caused by its action. Action for damages is likewise subject to the rules of substance and procedure of national law.

The Commission will be contacting the Italian authorities to take stock of the situation.

(2001/C 72 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1827/00 by Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Algeria-EU Association agreement

After a prolonged period, the negotiations between the EU and Algeria aimed at concluding an association agreement have entered a new phase. A new round of contacts has been launched both at a technical level, by the Commission, and at a political level, by the Council. On 12 May, a meeting at ministerial level was held by the Community ‘troika’ in Lisbon chaired by the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Jaime Gama, in order to consider the state of Euro-Algerian relations. The meeting was preceded by a meeting at diplomatic level.

The talks were meant to provide a new impetus to the political dialogue between the EU and Algeria, and keep up the pace of negotiations, culminating in the conclusion of an association agreement satisfactory to both parties. C 72 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

In view of the talks with the Algerian authorities over the past few weeks:

What are the Council’s guidelines and priorities as regards the political dialogue and the negotiation of the Association Agreement with Algeria?

In the Council’s opinion, what is the most realistic timetable for developing and achieving the EU-Algeria Association Agreement?

(28 September 2000)

Since 1997, the Council has agreed to intensify political dialogue with Algeria at ministerial level, in Algiers as well as elsewhere, on the basis of the following guidelines: solidarity with the Algerian people, condemnation of all forms of terrorism and excessive violence, full respect for fundamental freedoms, human rights and democratic principles, support for political and economic reform and the negotiation of a new Euro-Mediterranean association agreement. The first meeting took place on 26 November 1997 under the Luxembourg Presidency, followed by meetings on 19 and 20 January 1998 in Algiers, 21 October 1998 in Vienna, 3 November 1999 in Algiers, and most recently on 12 May 2000 in Lisbon. The French Presidency is planning to organise a similar political dialogue meeting in the second half of this year.

In all its contacts with the Algerian authorities, the Council points out that the fight against terrorism must not serve as a pretext for human rights violations, and that any departure from this and any abuse should be resisted. It is also convinced of the need for dialogue between the Government and the opposition. At the last meeting in Lisbon on 12 May, the Presidency particularly stressed that the Council supported the attempt at national reconciliation led by President Bouteflika and encouraged the economic and social reform process and the promotion of democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms. It expressed the EU’s concern about reports of detentions, extrajudicial arrests, torture and the fate of disappeared persons, both from the Government and the opposition.

The Council welcomes the policy decision of the Algerian authorities to resume negotiations with a view to an association agreement. The second negotiating session was held on 14 April 2000, and included a general overview of the negotiations and significant progress as regards the chapter on economic cooperation. An informal session at technical level will be held on 11 July in Algiers, and should be followed by a formal session in Brussels this autumn. The Council hopes that these negotiations can quickly end in the finalisation of the association agreement with Algeria, and will encourage the other countries with which negotiations are under way, namely Syria and the Lebanon, to accelerate them.

(2001/C 72 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1829/00 by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Exploitation of Lake Trasimeno’s water

Although Lake Trasimeno (near Perugia) is classed as a Site of Community Interest (SCI) and a Special Protection Area (SPA) under Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC, it is still being wrongly used as a basin for irrigation water. Almost uniquely in Italy, its broad cane thickets harbour more than 200 species of birds, and it boasts extremely rare plant species that have already disappeared from the majority of wetlands.

The water depletion is caused, firstly, by the enormous volumes taken for water-hungry crops such as maize, which have replaced traditional, more environmentally friendly agriculture and which receive large sums of Community aid, and, secondly, by water taken for public waste supplies.

Will the Commission examine whether this form of industrial farming, supported by Community funds, is not very much at odds with the need to safeguard this unique and irreplaceable habitat? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/127

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Lake Trasimeno has been designated by Italy as special protection area under Article 4.1 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1).

Therefore the provisions set in Article 4.4 of the same Directive apply, i.e. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbance affecting the birds, in so far as these would be significant having regard to the objectives of this article. Outside these protection areas Member States shall also strive to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats.

Detailed information is needed to correctly assess the case. For this reason a lettter has been addressed to the national authorities.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2001/C 72 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1834/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Dealing with the manufacture and distribution of pharmaceuticals in the central and eastern European applicant countries, and their impact on the EU after accession

The standards applying to the pharmaceutical industry in the central and eastern European applicant states do not comply with those of the EU. Hence when these countries join, the EU will face serious problems: among them, the fact that there is no protection of intellectual property comparable to the EU standard, that existing commitments have not been met and that there is likely to be distortion of competition against EU manufacturers.

1. What will the Commission do to introduce patent protection in the central and eastern European countries and prevent patented products from being offered for sale there as generic medicines after accession, as they are at present?

2. What action will it take to deal with the following:

To date, virtually none of the central and eastern European countries have fulfilled the commitments they made in the Europe Agreements to introduce a level of intellectual property protection similar to EU standards; such standards include the supplementary protection certificate for pharmaceuticals (SPC), which is an integral component of Community law and intended to guarantee an appropriate period of protection for pharmaceuticals in practice?

In many central and eastern European countries there is no effective patent protection on substances for many pharmaceuticals introduced by western companies, as it was only introduced in the 1990s. As a result, imitators are already copying drugs patented only in the present Member States, before the patent expires in the EU, and are thus able to supply the markets with cheap copies?

Low social and economic standards and unfair competition arising from the absence of patent protection are often forcing research pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer their original products there for substantially lower prices than they would if there were proper cost calculation including the total development cost?

There are still substantial deficiencies in the central and eastern European countries in the protection of supporting documents submitted for the authorisation of pharmaceuticals?

Standards of law enforcement and the administration of justice do not comply with EU standards in many central and eastern European countries? C 72 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

There are likely to be competitive advantages for manufacturers in many central and eastern European countries over EU manufacturers, as a result of failure to comply with international quality standards, which push up costs, and government failure to enforce them?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Commission considers that the large majority of the Central and Eastern European candidate countries have made substantive progress in harmonising domestic legislation with the acquis in the pharmaceutical sector. However, certain shortcomings still exist.

In the context of the accession negotiations, the Community has recalled the importance it attaches to the existence of an equal level of protection of industrial property rights within the enlarged Union.

The Community has therefore suggested that a specific mechanism be provided in the accession treaty in order to prevent distortions on the market for pharmaceutical products following enlargement. According to this mechanism the holder of a patent or supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for a pharmaceutical product filed in a Member State at a time when a product patent or SPC could not be obtained in a candidate country for that product, would be able to rely on the rights granted by that patent or SPC in order to prevent the import from that candidate country (following accession) and marketing of that product in the Member State or States where the product in question enjoys patent protection or SPC protection, even if this product was put on the market in the candidate country for the first time by the SPC or patent holder himself or with his consent.

In addition, as regards the introduction of a supplementary protection certificate, the Community stressed in the context of the accession negotiations that this Regulation is an essential part of the patent legislation in the pharmaceutical sector and that it should be applied in the candidate countries as early as possible and upon accession at the latest so that all patented pharmaceutical products with market authorisation should be eligible for a SPC even if the date of the first market authorisation has already expired.

As regards the protection of supporting clinical trial data submitted for the authorisation of pharmaceuticals, the candidate countries will have to take over the relevant ‘acquis’ by the time of accession. Existing obligations under the Trade-related intellectual property right agreement (TRIPs) are also relevant in this context.

As part of the accession process, the candidate countries will also have to apply the manufacturing practices and quality standards applied in the present Member States and comply with them fully at the latest by the time of accession. In fact, many candidate countries have already made good progress in this respect.

The Commission will continue to give special attention to legislative approximation as well as to the reinforcement of candidate countries administrative capacity.

(2001/C 72 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1835/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Trans-Pyrenean highway Navarre-Aquitaine

The Government of Navarre is studying the possibility of building a highway across the Pyrenees linking Pamplona/Iruña and Bayonne.

Does the Commission support this project, as is claimed by representatives of said regional government? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/129

In view of the Navarre Government’s failure to provide information, is the Commission aware of, or has it assessed, the enourmous environmental impact of said project?

Does the Commission not consider that there is a far greater need to improve the national highway N-121 and the railway connections?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

According to the information in the Commission’s possession there is indeed a projected new highway linking Pamplona with Bayonne. However, this project does not form part of the trans-European transport network as defined in Decision No 1692/96 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans- European transport network. So far the Spanish and French Governments have not asked the Commission to alter the definition of network in order to add this project, which thus remains within the purview of the national authorities.

In accordance with the declaration made in 1996 the Commission is, at this stage, also analysing projected Pyrenean crossings using a central route and by reopening the Pau-Canfranc line with a view to including these in the trans-European network maps. The projected improvements to highway N-121 is a common- interest project within the trans-European network. That network must consist of high-quality roads. The Commission thus supports any project enabling that aim to be achieved.

(2001/C 72 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1845/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Free movement of capital

Can the Commission confirm that certain Member States notably Spain set limits on the amount of cash that may be taken out of the country and, if so, state whether it regards these provisions as compatible with the obligations of the Member States under the Treaties?

If not, what action is the Commission taking to remedy this matter, and what courses of action are open to anyone who has suffered losses on account of these provisions?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Member States cannot under the obligations of Article 56 (ex Article 73b) of the EC Treaty set limits on the amount of cash that may be taken out of the country. Spain, in compliance with the EC Treaty’s obligations, does not set limits to the export of capital.

However, under Spanish law the import or the export of currency in excess of a given amount has to be declared to the customs administration. The law establishing such a ‘declaration system’ is not in breach of Community law. In fact, under Article 58 (ex Article 73d) of the EC Treaty, it is set out that the provisions of Article 56 shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to ‘lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative or statistical information’, provided the measures and procedures applied ‘shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movements of capital’. Moreover, Member States using such a ‘declaration system’ have also the right to define amounts of fines in case of infringements of the regulation.

Questions concerning damages for the loss suffered on capital (exchange rate differentials) and interest (interest on the sums withheld in excess of the fine) can only be determined by the Spanish courts. C 72 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1846/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Licensing and supervision of aircraft pilots

Does the Commission regard the present arrangements for the licensing and supervision of aircraft pilots in the Member States as satisfactory?

In particular, does it see any potential conflict of interest in the fact that examiners responsible for testing pilots are employed by industry rather than by a government agency (as is normal in connection with the licensing of car drivers)?

To what extent have qualifications now been mutually recognised by Member States?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

There is no Community legislation at the moment on the licensing and monitoring of the professional ability of aircraft pilots.

The Commission does not consider that there is a gap in the existing arrangement in the Member States in this area but, rather with a view to introducing joint rules and requirements for the licensing of pilots, it plans to put forward, during the last quarter of the year, a legislative proposal on the basis of the Joint Aviation Requirement-Flight Crew Licensing (JAR-FCL), which was developed by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) and has already been adopted by some Member States. This text is the result of consultations with the participation of both representatives of the industry and the professions concerned and also includes provisions on instructors and examiners.

With regard to the specific question of examiners responsible for testing pilots being employed by industry rather than by a government agency, there might be a certain conflict of interest; however, this situation arises from the need for such examiners to have the experience and high number of flying hours which they can only acquire by exercising their profession. When the above specific joint rules are being considered, care will have to be taken to ensure a fair balance between the two requirements of independence and expertise by laying down clear, strict rules for the exercise of the profession of examiner.

With regard to the mutual acceptance of personnel licences for the exercise of functions in civil aviation, there is Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 16 December 1991 (1), but this is concerned only with personnel performing duties essential to the operation of an aircraft during flight time. This therefore excludes examiners and instructors, for whom, depending on the level of training required in the Member States, the mutual recognition of qualifications is dealt with either by Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (2), or Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (3).

(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991. (2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. (3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/131

(2001/C 72 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1847/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Noise pollution from aircraft

Can the Commission state whether there are or should be common arrangements to cover noise pollution from aircraft at EU airports, and to what extent these arrangements cover light aircraft?

Are there and should there be any requirements to ensure consultation with local communities that may be affected?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

As part of its environmental policy the Commission intends to present in the near future to the other institutions a proposal for a framework directive on the assessment and reduction of environmental noise exposure. This framework directive is intended to be applicable to major airports, i.e. airports with a number of annual movements exceeding a certain threshold. Therefore, noise nuisance caused by light aircraft would be covered insofar as such aircraft operate at major airports and their noise levels are incorporated in the noise exposure assessment methods.

The Commission is of the opinion that the availability of neutral and transparent information about levels of noise exposure to the public, as required in the draft framework directive, will facilitate the consultation process for those who may be affected.

In addition, in its communication on air transport and environment (1) the Commission has stressed the necessity to give due consideration to establishing enforceable rights for local communities to request consultations and negotiations on the introduction of new operating rules at airports, as well as guarantees that noise nuisance is actually reduced and not just shifted to other areas. It intends to undertake discussions with interested parties on the appropriateness of framework regulations at Community level serving this purpose.

(1) COM(1999) 640 final.

(2001/C 72 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1851/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Reciprocity in health care

Can the Commission state what the legal basis is for Member States’ obligations to provide health care to each other’s nationals (whether residents or tourists) and whether the refusal by some states, such as Belgium, to provide free health care to nationals of other states unless those nationals have contributed to a local health scheme, even though its own nationals will be treated free of charge in some other Member States, constitutes a form of discrimination or impediment to freedom of movement that could be challenged in the European Court of Justice?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

The Commission would point out that Community law does not affect the power of the Member States to organise their social security systems and, in particular, their health care systems, as they wish. C 72 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

There is therefore considerable variation in the way in which State health care systems are organised in the Community. For example, certain Member States have opted for a system of direct provision of health benefits in kind without financial consideration from the patient (for example, in Germany and the Netherlands), while other systems provide medical services and products in return for payment by the patient, followed by reimbursement by his health insurance fund according to a corresponding scale (e.g. Belgium and France). Each Member State is also free to choose the range of health care and medical products that are provided or reimbursed on its territory.

However, Community law must be complied with in the exercise of this power that has remained in national hands. Mention should be made in this connection of the existence of Council Regulation (EEC) 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (1), which coordinates the statutory social security schemes of the Member States in order to provide effective protection to persons who move within the Community.

These regulations guarantee, in particular, that all citizens who have the nationality of a Member State other than the Member State in which they reside enjoy the same rights as citizens of that Member State. They also lay down the conditions relating to the reimbursement of medical expenses whenever a person requires medical care during a temporary stay in a Member State other than the one in which he is insured or whenever a person moves with the specific aim of receiving care in another Member State. If the conditions laid down in Community regulations are met, notably the proof of entitlement to health care in the State of affiliation, which generally issues an E 111 or E 112 form, any Community citizen may receive care provided under the legislation of the Member State in which he resides, payable by the State in which he is insured.

Belgium is therefore entitled to require all recipients of medical care on its territory to pay the costs of such care, which will, in principle, be reimbursed to them under the scale laid down in Belgian legislation.

(1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972 Most recent consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).

(2001/C 72 E/166) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1853/00 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Funds for Turkey

What proportion of the total funds earmarked for Turkey under the MEDA programme and the European strategy for Turkey has been spent in sectors such as education, health, the environment, promotion of civil society, human rights and protection of minorities in the south-east (Kurdish) region of Turkey?

What checks are carried out in order to ensure that the money is in fact spent on the identified projects and is the Commission satisfied by the degree of local consultation with the Kurdish people in connection with framing and implementation of the projects?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Within the framework of the MEDA I programme (1996-1999), the Commission has committed a total of € 376 million for Turkey. The Commission’s policy is to focus its interventions on the most disadvantaged groups in society, such as women, children and minorities. Thus, a substantial proportion of the sums committed to Turkey have been allocated to projects which are ‘gender-centric’ (for example, funding family-planning centres) and which are implemented in those regions which suffer from the greatest ‘development deficit’, such as the south-east (for example, a project to support basic education in the south-eastern provinces). 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/133

The projects the Commission supports are designed to benefit the entire population of Turkey. However, it is only natural that projects which focus on the south-east of the country and on the poorest sections of Turkish society are likely to have most impact on Kurdish communities (which tend to be poorer and are principally to be found in these areas). A large part of the funds committed to date are destined for projects of this kind.

The Commission would also like to point out that in 1997 it had hoped to fund a rural development project in south-east Turkey, but Parliament issued a negative opinion on the proposal.

The priority accorded to the most disadvantaged groups (women, children and minorities) has been reaffirmed in the financial aid programme for Turkey for the period 2000-2002, both in the context of the MEDA II programme, and in the European Strategy regulations.

Project proposals are identified ‘in the field’, and care is taken to consult with all concerned persons and organisations, as well as with civil society. The preparation and administration of the projects are monitored on a daily basis by the Commission and its representation in Ankara, so as to ensure that the terms of reference are respected, with regard both to objectives and to target populations. An independent audit is carried out whenever a project is completed.

(2001/C 72 E/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1854/00 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: International Criminal Court (ICC)

In the context of the CFSP, what joint standpoint are the Member States adopting with regard to the US proposals to amend the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) in order, for example, to prevent their own citizens from being tried by the court, to exempt individuals who ‘act within the overall direction’ of a State, to allow the court to enter into agreements with individual states, and to permit the negotiation of a ‘supplemental document’ which would have the effect of radically amending the Rome Statute?

Do the Member States and the Commission, acting in concert under the CFSP, agree that it is vital to work to convince the US that it is in interests to support and sign the existing Statute and resist any attempt to undermine the integrity of the Statute, which already has 96 signatories and has been ratified by eight countries?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

The Commission agrees that it would be very valuable if the United States were able to participate fully in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Community has carefully analysed the United States’ proposal on the rules of procedure for the court and has come to the conclusion that the text in its present form would lead to an unacceptable modification of the key provisions of the Statute related to the jurisdiction of the Court.

The Community has raised this issue repeatedly in the framework of the Common foreign and security policy dialogue between the Community and the United States. On 31 May 2000 at the Community/ United States summit, the member of the Commission responsible for foreign relations discussed the issue with Secretary of State Mrs Albright. He indicated that the Community was ready to look at other American proposals on the ICC but any such proposal could only be considered in the light of full respect of the integrity of the Court’s Statute. The Presidency has also recently informed American officials about this position. C 72 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1855/00 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Differential pricing by airlines

It has been reported that it is cheaper to fly from some EU Member States via Heathrow to the US than it is to fly simply from Heathrow to the US, on the same airline.

Differential pricing usually applies to ticket prices on the different legs of a return journey. This, however, is an instance of differential pricing on the same one-way route.

Does the Commission regard this as an acceptable use of differential pricing? If not, what action does it propose to take?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

The Commission takes the view that London-New York is a different market than, for example, Brussels- New York and that companies are therefore justified in pricing tickets for these two destinations differently even if a Brussels-New York flight goes via Heathrow. In general direct flights from all Community airports to the United States are more expensive than indirect flights. There may be an infringement of the competition rules, however, if airlines restrict the possibility for consumers in London to buy and use cheaper tickets from departure points elsewhere in the Community, particularly if such restrictions are based on an agreement or concerted practice between a number of airlines. The Commission is currently considering whether any action is required on this issue.

(2001/C 72 E/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1856/00 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) and Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Languages used for Commission press releases

What is the Commission’s linguistic policy and usage with regard to the media?

Is it true that press releases issued after Commission meetings are in French and English only?

In the last five years, have there been any protests from any Member State government in this connection, or any proposals that this policy should be changed?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

The majority of Commission press releases are available in all eleven Community languages. However, for practical reasons connected with the time taken for translation and in agreement with the accredited press represented in the International Press Association (IPA), most press releases are issued only in French and English (and/or German) at the regular midday press conference. In the case of press releases about Commission meetings, the other languages are available electronically on the Internet within a very short time (the Rapid database). 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/135

Certain press releases are not translated into all eleven languages, namely those relating to company mergers (FR/EN/DE + language of the Member State concerned), state aid and infringement proceedings (FR/EN + language of the Member State concerned) and to the weekly timetable of Commission activities.

The Commission is not aware of any official government complaint about the languages used for press releases.

(2001/C 72 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1861/00 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Special protection zones for birds in the Valencian Autonomous Community

The Valencian Autonomous Community has dragged its feet for years and years over setting-up the special protection areas for birds (SPAB) established by the European Union.

At present, because the Commission itself has denounced the situation, the Valencian Government is seeking to extend the surface area to be protected as special protection areas for birds to include areas which are already protected, but even so, the protection provided for falls very far short of the European Union’s own criteria. The report drawn up by SEO-Birdlife for the Commission envisaged 736 637 hectares of Valencian territory coming under the special protection area heading, while the Valencian Government is seeking to protect only 266 049 hectares.

Granting special protection area status in this way reduces the number of hectares protected, and leaves areas of major importance such as the Marjal d’Almenara, great swathes of the Alicante mountain range and the mountain ranges of La Marína and the ports of Morella and Beceit unprotected.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the policy on protection and the granting of SPAB status is complied with?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

The Commission does not know exactly how much of its territory the Council of the Autonomous Community of Valencia intends to designate as a special protection area (SPA) for birds.

As the Honourable Member indicates, the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Spain for failure to designate or insufficient designation of SPAs in the country as a whole, including the Autonomous Community of Valencia. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take all the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is complied with throughout Spanish territory.

(2001/C 72 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1862/00 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: Red tuna catches in Dènia and Gandía

In the fishing ports of Dènia and Gandía French fishermen have been using nets several miles long to capture red tuna for years now.

The catches of red tuna do not meet the authorised minimum weight of 60 kg, and no checks of any kind are carried out. C 72 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Since fishing in this way is extremely destructive of Mediterranean fish stocks, with protected species also being caught, how does the Council intend to require of the governments of the States concerned that they adopt appropriate measures and comply with Community fisheries regulations?

Will the Council sanction those countries which fail to comply with the regulations?

(28 September 2000)

The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2846/98, which lays down that it is for the Member States to take the necessary measures to monitor all fishing activity within their territory and their coastal waters. Pursuant to Article 29 of the same Regulation, it is the Commission which verifies application of the Regulation by the Member States. It may conduct on-the- spot visits and carry out verifications without prior notice.

This question should therefore be put to the Commission.

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1626/94, the minimum size for red tuna is 70 cm or 6,4 kg. These measures have been maintained for the year 2000 by the Regulation fixing TACs and quotas (Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999).

(2001/C 72 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1865/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Risks to the safety of workers and citizens as a result of applying national rules on health and safety in the workplace to public works tunnel building operations

Commissioner Diamantopoulou’s reply of 3 April 2000 claims that an examination of Spanish legislation has shown that the application of the provisions laid down for the mining sector with regard to tunnel building increases the level of protection for workers provided for by Directive 92/57/EEC.

The claim, however, flatly contradicts the conclusions which the majority of Member States appear to have reached. In the cases of Italy, Portugal, Belgium, Ireland, UK, France and Germany, at least, none of the laws transposing Directive 92/104/EEC apply to public works under construction in general, nor to civilian tunnelling and underground public work in particular. The Spanish Ministry of Development appears to have reached the same conclusion; in response to the safety risks to workers and the general public posed by the legal provisions applicable to mining, it approved the Order of 19 November 1998 laying down specific provisions for planning, building and using underground constructions for road and rail transport (technical regulation IOS 98), excluding the application of provisions concerning mining in the planning, building and use of underground and submarine public works, on which the Ministry has drafted a document which has been forwarded to the sectors concerned for information and consultation.

Furthermore, accident statistics in the mining sector indicate a situation which flatly contradicts the Commissioner’s statements. Between 1984 and 1999, 741 people were killed in working accidents in mining. Over the same period, and before the adoption of the Spanish legislation contrary to Directive 92/ 57/EEC, contained in Royal Decree 1389/97, there was one single serious accident in the extremely numerous public works tunnel building operations which have been carried out as part of Spanish infrastructure operations over the last 15 years. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/137

What is the technical basis for the Commission’s claim that the application to public works tunnelling operation (non-military) of rules on protecting workers in the mining sector increases the level of protection afforded to workers employed in tunnel building?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, already in its reply to Written Question E-467/00 (1), it pointed out that application of the rules enshrined by Real Decreto 1389/1997, which transposes Directive 92/104/EEC (2) on surface and underground mineral-extracting industries, to tunnel building, irrespective of their nature, is without prejudice to the provisions transposing Directive 92/57/ EEC (3) on temporary or mobile work sites, namely Real Decreto 1627/1997.

Pursuant to Article 137(5) of the EC Treaty (ex-Article 118), Member States are authorised to maintain or introduce more stringent protective measures than those provided for in the Community instrument.

Hence the application of certain provisions of Directive 82/104/EEC to tunnel building effectively reinforces the minimum levels of protection established by Directive 92/57/EEC. This applies in particular to the minimum rules set out in part A of the Annex to Directive 92/104/EEC and which concern protection from fire hazards (point 4.4), explosives and initiating devices (point 5), means of evacuation and escape (point 10), safety drills (point 11), first-aid facilities (point 12) and the minimum provisions provided for in part C, which concern support and ground stability (point 6), ventilation (point 7), fires, combustions and heatings when the use of hydraulic fluids which are difficult to ignite for the transmission of hydrostatic and/or hydrokinetic mechanical energy in the machinery is necessary to avoid the risk of fire and its spread (point 11.3), lighting (point 13), underground workforce accounting (point 14) and rescue organisation, so as to take appropriate and rapid action in the event of any major incident (point 15).

All these minimum rules supplement and reinforce the level of health and safety of workers involved in tunnel building within the meaning of Directive 92/57/EEC and notably those referred to in point 10 of Annex IV, Part B.

As regards the statistics mentioned by the Honourable Member, it should be pointed out that the total number of workers who died in the extractive industries (1984-1999) includes according to the information provided by the Spanish authorities (4) victims of fatal accidents both in underground and surface workings and in ancillary surface installations. As from 1996 the data on accidents in tunnels have been indicated separately.

Hence, contrary to the data cited by the Honourable Member, the statistics provided by the Spanish authorities show that, for the 1996-1999 period alone, nine fatal accidents and four serious accidents occurred in tunnel building work.

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 167. (2) OJ L 404, 31.12.1992. (3) OJ L 245, 26.8.1992. (4) Informe de Actividad de la Comisión de Seguridad Minera, Dirección General de Minas, Ministerio de Industria y Energía (junio 1999).

(2001/C 72 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1870/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Prisons and the ‘third pillar’

The recent incidents in the Sassari district prison (Sardinia) and the subsequent action by the judicial authorities highlight the critical situation in Italian prisons, which is adversely affecting the conditions in C 72 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

which prisoners are being held and the activities of the judicial police. Outdated buildings, unacceptable and insanitary conditions, overcrowding (with an occupancy rate of 120 % of the number of places available) and prison staff shortages are only some of the more glaring defects of the prison system. In such circumstances, violent incidents of all kinds are the order of the day and the possibility of ensuring respect for human rights can seem remote.

In view of the prospect of cooperation in ‘third pillar’ matters:

1. Why does the Commission not carry out a comparative study of the situation in the Union countries’ prisons to assess prison conditions and propose the standards that should be maintained?

2. What differences are there between the respective legal status of members of the judicial police in the various Member States?

3. Is it conceivable that they might eventually be harmonised?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

The situation of prisons in the European Union referred to by the Honourable Member is first and foremost a matter for the Member States.

1. A comparative study of prison conditions would theoretically be feasible under the Grotius financing programme, which has been adopted in the justice and home affairs field. To date, however, this matter has not been included in the programmes setting annual priorities and no request for a study along the lines of that proposed by the Honourable Member has been received.

2. The status of members of the judicial police differs between Member States, depending on the relevant national legislation.

3. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, harmonisation of status is currently not one of the priority objectives in the justice and home affairs field. However, a range of training, information and communication initiatives for members of the police have been launched at European level, in line with the priorities identified by the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999 for the creation of a European area of freedom, security and justice.

(2001/C 72 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1871/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Body piercing: risks and information

The current obsession with ‘body awareness’ is reflected in the potentially harmful fashion for body piercing among young people. In some EU countries the practice is regulated to ensure that health and safety standards are observed. Unless certain rules are followed concerning the materials used and the way in which the piercing of various parts of the body is carried out, followers of this fashion run serious risks, the most common of which are infection and hepatitis.

1. Can the Commission list the Union countries in which this practice is subject to regulation?

2. Could the Commission call on those countries which do not have such provisions to introduce them?

3. Does the Commission agree that it would be good idea to propose information campaigns in schools to highlight the dangers of body piercing and discourage young people from allowing such piercing to be carried out by unqualified people? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/139

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

At the moment there are no Community regulations covering the practice of body piercing as such. However, European Parliament and Council Directive 94/27/EEC of 30 June 1994 amending for the twelfth time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (1), which recently entered into force, prohibits the use of nickel for body piercing. This is important, as 15 % of women in the Community are now sensitised to nickel, and this is partly attributed to its use in body piercing.

The Commission does not know of any specific regulations applied by Member States in this field. It will carry out a survey on this subject among the Member States in order to establish whether Community initiatives in this field are justified and necessary, and what form they could take. It will inform the Honourable Member of the results of this survey.

(1) OJ L 188, 22.7.1994.

(2001/C 72 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1874/00 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Subject: European food aid to Russia

1. Has the Commission taken note of the report entitled ‘Russians blame EU for pigs’ deaths’ in NRC Handelsblad on 27 May 2000?

2. The report asserts that earlier this year, because French and German meat was being stored in the slaughterhouse at Jaroslavl, there was no storage capacity for pigs from local pig farmers, causing the deaths of thousands of Russian pigs. Is that assertion correct?

3. Does the Commission agree with its acting delegate in Moscow that the European aid package, worth US$ 500 million, has not disrupted the Russian market? If so, does it have figures to back up that proposition?

4. On what information is the acting delegate’s statement that EU food aid to Russia ‘has saved thousands of babushkas’ lives’ based?

5. Does the Commission agree with a Dutch meat trader in Russia that EU food aid is putting pressure on prices in Russia and that the European Union and the US are rumoured to be dumping surpluses?

6. Is the Commission prepared to open an investigation into the impact of EU food aid on the pig market in Russia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Commission does not accept the criticism reported in the NRC Handelsblad to which the Honourable Member refers.

The food delivery programme was adopted by the Council in December 1998, after considering the request of the Russian government for assistance. Because of the poor harvest and financial crisis of 1998, the Russian government feared that there would be food shortages and speculative price rises in many Russian regions through the winter of 1998 and spring of 1999. To avoid this it was necessary to import a substantial quantity of food. C 72 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

The products supplied were delivered to over 50 of the 89 regions of the Russian Federation and both the Community and American food delivery programmes (total quantity of about 5 million tonnes) had a significant impact in bridging the food needs deficit. As a consequence, prices for most food products rose gradually, rather than sharply as had been feared.

Before this crisis, around 85 % of Community food exports to the Federation (mainly beef and pork) went to Moscow and St Petersburg and the regions surrounding the two cities. These areas were specifically excluded from the Community food programme to avoid disruption to traditional export markets.

The proceeds from the sale of the food are being used for pension fund (80 %) and other priority social purposes (20 %). As a result the pension fund was able to clear arrears in full thus providing valuable income to those most in need. The total proceeds to be generated from sales will be about 7 400 million roubles (€ 274 million) and it is generally acknowledged that this income has been properly targeted to ensure that the less fortunate have benefited.

The quantity of pork allocated to Yaroslavl under the Community programme was 5 000 tonnes, but the actual quantity delivered was only 2 413 tonnes. In fact, three of the four regional processing plants went bankrupt before delivery of Community pork, which demonstrates that the local industry was already in serious difficulty. Responsibility for discharge, internal transport, distribution and storage was the sole responsibility of the Russian authorities. However, the loss of three regional processing plants is likely to have been the main cause of any disruption in the market, rather than the presence of Community product in the cold stores. In relation to storage, the Commission considers that the percentage of total capacity utilised (private and state controlled) for the Community programme was negligible.

Under the terms of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of 17 December 1998 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (1), the programme is being independently evaluated. The interim report of the evaluators has already been presented to the Council and a copy is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. The final report will be completed in the near future.

(1) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998.

(2001/C 72 E/176) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1881/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Price of fuel in Spain

There have been six consecutive rises in fuel prices in Spain in the space of a month. The latest rise is all the more surprising when we see that all the major oil companies operating in the sector are maintaining prices which, as the Commissioner Mrs Loyola de Palacio has pointed out, ‘amazingly’ coincide.

Leaving this ‘coincidence’ aside, what steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take in this context? Does it believe that competition in this sector is being distorted?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2000)

The fact that the major oil companies operating in the Spanish market are charging similar retail prices does not, in itself, necessarily mean that distributors have formed cartels or that competition is being distorted. It is true, as the Honourable Member points out, that parallel pricing could be the result of concerted practices or agreements between operators with the object or effect of distorting competition. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/141

That said, the Commission does not at present have any evidence to suggest any agreement or coordinated policy among the distribution companies. Furthermore, it has learned that the Spanish authorities are currently carrying out an inquiry into the matter. The Commission assures the Honourable Member that it will continue to monitor compliance with Community competition law in the sector, and that it does not rule out taking action if there prove to be issues with a Community dimension.

(2001/C 72 E/177) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1884/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of systems for the notification of public acts

A Belgian citizen, Mr Claes, owns land in Playa de San Juan in Alicante (Spain). His land was included in the project to reallocate plots of land under the first stage of the La Condomina Plan. As a result, the area of the plots allocated to Mr Claes (2 400 square metres) is less than one fifth the size of his original piece of land (14 000 square metres). During the procedure for reallocating land the system of notification has restricted the ability of non-Spanish citizens to represent their own interests at local government offices and register their opposition to or appeal against town planning projects. Under this system, notification is not sent to the home of each party involved, e.g. to Mr Claes’s address in Belgium, it being considered sufficient to post up a public notice, to which those resident abroad naturally do not have access. In particular, Mr Claes was deprived of his full right to hold on to his land and make a cash payment to the town planning authorities, as the law entitles him to do. He was never informed about this right and the deadline for exercising it.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

1. whether it does not consider that this kind of situation leads to discrimination against Community citizens;

2. whether it intends to introduce measures to harmonise the notification of public acts in order to prevent any discrimination against Community citizens in procedures affecting their right of ownership;

3. what forms of redress are open to Mr Claes to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The information provided only by the Honourable Member does not enable the Commission to determine whether the rules relating to publication and posting to which she refers constitute discrimination on the basis of nationality. At first sight, the answer would appear to be no in so far neither the nationality of the owners of the land in question nor their place of residence constitutes a criterion for the application of any given provision. The procedure seems to apply to all owners and accordingly apply in the same way to an owner of Spanish nationality residing in another Member State.

The Commission does not envisage proposing Community rules on the notification of public acts in Member States. However, it would point out that the Member States can neither introduce nor maintain national provisions which could constitute discrimination under the EC Treaty. It would also point out to the Honourable Member that on 29 May 2000, the Council adopted a Regulation on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1). However, this Regulation applies only to the transmission of documents from one Member State to another.

The means of redress open to the citizen referred to by the Honourable Member are those provided for by the national legislation in force.

(1) OJ L 160, 30.6.2000. C 72 E/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1885/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: EU aid to Turkey in the context of customs cooperation

The European Parliament has repeatedly stressed the importance of stepping up customs cooperation in order to improve and facilitate trade transactions, whilst making the Turkish authorities better acquainted with Community customs legislation in order to prevent the entry of counterfeit and pirated goods.

In the context of the programme designed to strengthen the customs union with Turkey, does the Commission plan to include specific projects for this purpose?

Has the Commission ascertained whether the Turkish authorities have adopted measures to ensure compliance with the provisions to safeguard intellectual, industrial and commercial property since the entry into force of the customs union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

The Commission has proposed a number of initiatives along the lines described by the Honourable Member. However, in the past, these have not always been supported by the other institutions. The Commission is now proposing two new initiatives. The first is for a Council Regulation regarding the implementation of measures to intensify the EC-Turkey customs union, costing € 15 million, on which Parliament was consulted on 2 December 1999. The second initiative is a proposal for a Council Regulation to establish an EIB special action programme in support of the consolidation and intensification of the customs union.

A programme of administrative cooperation launched in 1996 received € 1 million to develop cooperation between the central and local administrations in Turkey and the Community, with a view to capacity- building and improving the effectiveness of the numerous Turkish ministries, government departments, agencies and public institutions responsible for implementing the customs union. This programme is drawing to a close and will be continued under the MEDA programme.

In addition, the customs cooperation committee set up by Decision 1/95 of the Association Council meets twice a year to build customs cooperation between the relevant Turkish and Community administrations. These meetings provide an opportunity to discuss issues concerning the alignment of Turkey’s customs legislation on the Community’s and the proper application of the law. The Commission and the Turkish delegation raise problems which the authorities and traders have encountered. This dialogue enables detailed explanations to be given and allows both sides to seek solutions together, thus improving the Turkish authorities’ knowledge of the applicable legislation.

The latter includes intellectual, industrial and commercial property law, to which the Honourable Member refers. Article 31 of Decision 1/95 of the Association Council confirms the importance attached to these matters by the parties, and Annex 8 of that Decision sets out arrangements under which Turkey must protect such rights to a degree comparable to that in the Community. Consequently, Turkey set up a Turkish patent institute on 24 June 1995 (Decree Law No 544) and 14 texts have entered into force (a list has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat). 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/143

(2001/C 72 E/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1887/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Infringement of the New York Convention on the rights of the child

On 25 September 1999, Lucio Congiu settled in Italy with his twin sons, Antoine and Charles, after their mother had left the family home at La Bastidonne, France, leaving the two children with their father, to whom she was not married. Subsequently, the children’s mother applied to a French family court; the court decided to issue an international arrest warrant for Mr Congiu on 26 September 1999, on the grounds of refusing to hand back the children, although there had been no previous proceedings giving the mother custody of the children or visiting rights. On 30 November 1999 the French family court judged the father guilty of kidnapping and declared that he had forfeited his rights as a father. And although the children were then returned to their mother, the court decided to pursue the case and requested that Mr Congiu be extradited for child abduction.

The scale of the judicial resources deployed in this case to settle a dispute between parents over the custody of children is a clear infringement of the New York International Convention on the rights of the child.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary, in the light of its new powers under the Treaty of Amsterdam, to make an effort to persuade the Member States involved in this case to respect their international undertakings and review the decisions concerning Mr Congiu? More generally, does the Commission not think that it should take action urgently to prevent already difficult situations becoming even more problematic because parents are nationals of different Member States?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that it cannot express its views either on the case in question or on the judgments delivered vis-à-vis the person mentioned.

Moreover, the new provisions of the EC Treaty do not give the Commission the authority to make representations to the Member States concerned, namely France and Italy, with a view to amending the decisions taken. It is exclusively for the person in question to exercise his lawful rights, to present his defence de facto and de iure before the courts concerned and, where necessary, to appeal against the decisions taken.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern as regards the need to bear in mind the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in particular Article 9 thereof, which expressly provides that the child has the right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis.

At present, however, the Commission does not envisage proposing Community rules on child abduction. All the Member States are already party to the Hague Convention of 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction. The main aims of the Convention are to organise cooperation within a network of designated central authorities, to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed or detained in a Contracting State and to ensure that rights of custody and access under the law of one Contracting State are enforced in the other Contracting States. There is also a 1980 Council of Europe Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and Restoration of Custody of Children, to which Italy and France are Contracting Parties. In addition, the Council of Europe is preparing a convention on contacts with children, which proposes operational rules for the implementation of Article 9 of the above United Nations Convention. C 72 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

At the specifically Community level, the Regulation of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters provides that rights of access and custody recognised or granted by the authorities of one Member State to parents of children of both spouses in the event of the dissolution of matrimonial ties are to be recognised and enforced in other Member States. Further progress is foreseeable and one day decisions taken in another Member State, in particular with regard to parental responsibility, may be enforced promptly and without formalities, albeit subject to guarantees.

Rights of custody and access are determined by the competent national authorities acting under the Community rules, international instruments or international private law. It is for each Member State to decide if and how the right of custody or access is to be granted to one or other of the parents and what civil or criminal penalties are to be applied should one of the parents fail to respect these rights.

(2001/C 72 E/180) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1890/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Use of languages by the Commission in the Brussels Capital Region

In the new contracts of the European Commission Research Directorates General Shared Cost RTD CPF Forms Electra A6 for shared-cost R&D projects under the Fifth Framework Programme (1999-2000), the Commission uses only the address Rue de la Loi Bruxelles. This gives the misleading impression that the 19 Brussels communes are French-speaking. According to the Constitution of the Belgian Federation, these communes form part of the bilingual Brussels Capital Region.

1. Will the Commission and its departments in future use both the Dutch and French addresses for their correspondence, in view of the bilingual status of the 19 communes in the Brussels Capital Region? If not, why do the Commission and its departments refuse to acknowledge the bilingual character of the communes concerned by using both the Dutch and French-language addresses in their correspondence?

2. Will the Commission and its departments in future use both the Dutch and French addresses for their correspondence in order to avoid displaying any preference for the Dutch-speaking or the French-speaking community in the Brussels Capital Region? If not, why do the Commission and its departments demonstrate their preference for the French-speaking community by using only French-language addresses in their correspondence?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission acknowledges the bilingual status of the boroughs within the metropolitan Brussels region. The Commission’s headed notepaper in Brussels gives the address in both French and Dutch where the heading is in a language other than those two. The rules applies not only to mail but also to any other printed matter or publication.

Those rules were covered by an instruction sent out to the (Commission’s) departments on 6 March 1995 and have also been incorporated into the Manual of Procedures (cf. Item 17.5.2.).

The example quoted by the Honourable Member was due to an error. The Commission has taken action to remind the departments concerned of the abovementioned rules and to ensure that this error is corrected in the next publication. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/145

(2001/C 72 E/181) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1894/00 by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Subject: Forest fires in polluted areas of Belarus and the Ukraine

1. Is there any truth in the reports that forest fires have broken out in Belarus and the Ukraine in areas polluted as a result of the Chernobyl disaster?

2. Will these fires result in greater risks for public health in the countries in question and beyond?

3. Have the fires prompted action by the European Union, or will they prompt such action?

4. In what way is the EU helping to control the risks of pollution in Belarus and the Ukraine?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Several forest and peat fires broke out in Belarus and Ukraine in mid May 2000. The Commission has no information suggesting that these fires broke out as a result of the Chernobyl accident.

However, some of the forests involved are contaminated, and the fires may therefore constitute a mechanism for spreading radioactivity. This issue was the subject of Commission research projects within a programme of international cooperation on the environment and health consequences of the Chernobyl accident. The investigations found that only a marginal fraction of the total inventory of radionuclides existing in contaminated forests can be suspended in the air once more following a fire. The recent fires seem to reinforce this finding, since only small increases were recorded in the levels of radiation.

Regarding new initiatives to respond to this situation the Commission will keep the situation under review. It is worth recalling that the Commission has an active programme of assistance in this field, which continues to address the consequences of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. This includes assistance to build an adequate shelter for the reactor, to improve radioactive waste management and to address the environmental aspects of the situation. A Commission funded pilot project to install radiation monitoring systems for air and river water was initiated in Ukraine and Belarus during 1995. These systems are in operation.

Moreover, medical and humanitarian assistance has been provided to the inhabitants of the areas worst affected by the disaster.

(2001/C 72 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1899/00 by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: EU assistance for the Internet website ‘Südtirol-Online’

1. Is it true that, as part of the ADAPT programme, the Commission has assisted the Internet service ‘Südtirol-Online’ of the Athesia publishing house with 1 billion lire through the project sponsor D.Net?

2. How does the Commission explain the contention that, while the official project description states that the EU assistance is intended for the Internet training of 40 to 50 journalists, only 11 people are employed at ‘Südtirol-Online’? How has the Commission reacted to public criticism levelled in this connection at Athesia, D.Net and ‘Südtirol-Online’, and what information can it provide on precisely how resources have been spent on this project? What overall conclusion has been reached in any evaluations so far made of this project? C 72 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

3. What does the Commission think of the accusation that ‘Südtirol-Online’ has for some time tolerated extreme right-wing chat fora on its website? Given these criticisms, how can EU assistance for this Internet service be justified?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The issue raised by the Honourable Member relates to the management of projects cofinanced by the European Social Fund (ESF) under the various Community Initiatives. In accordance with Community rules and in line with the principle of subsidiarity, management of these projects falls within the competence of the Member States.

Having contacted the Member State, the Commission can confirm that the project’s budget is LIT 982 900 000, of which a sum of 442 000 000 is cofinanced by the ESF, 147 435 000 by the national budget (fondo di rotazione), and LIT 393 160 000 provided by the private sector. The amount of the advance already paid by the ESF is LIT 73 000 000.

The Commission has asked the national authorities to check on the entire project. In accordance with the partnership principle, no further advance payments will be made.

(2001/C 72 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1905/00 by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Subject: Marriage contracts

Can the Commission confirm that marriage contracts validated and signed under one Member State’s laws are not valid in the courts of another?

Can the Commission give the European Parliament an assurance that it will introduce steps to provide legal protection to citizens in such situations?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

The Honourable Member has asked the Commission to confirm that marriage contracts validated and signed under the law of one Member State are not valid before the courts of another Member State.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that at the moment there are no Community rules applicable to marriage contracts and matrimonial property arrangements. The Brussels and Rome Conventions on Jurisdiction and the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations in Civil and Commercial Matters exclude matrimonial property arrangements from their scope. Similarly, the regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters excludes marriage contracts and matrimonial property arrangements. However, the Commission communication proposing a scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area ‘of freedom, security and justice’ (1), provides for the drawing up by April 2004 of a preliminary study on jurisdiction and applicable law, for matrimonial property arrangements.

It follows then that the validity of marriage contracts concluded in another Member State is currently governed by the national rules, notably under private international law, of each Member State. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/147

Moreover, the Commission would point out that there is a Convention on the Law Applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes concluded under the aegis of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, but it has been ratified by only three Member States, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

(1) COM(2000) 167 final.

(2001/C 72 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1907/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Subject: Beal Valley Contract: public procurement

The Beal Valley Action Group first made contact with the Commission in April 1999 regarding the alleged failure of Oldham Council to advertise the ‘Beal Valley’ golf course project according to EC rules on public procurement.

On 3 September 1999 the Action Group received a response from the Directorate-General for Competi- tion requesting further information regarding the case. On 30 September 1999, copies of correspondence between the Beal Valley Action Group and the Commission were hand delivered to the Directorate-General for Competition together with extracts from the advice on the case from the Queen’s Counsel and Barrister (dated May 1998).

A letter was received from John Mogg, Director-General of the Directorate-General for Competition, on 26 October requesting further information about the contract value of the works in question. On 25 January, a letter was sent by myself to Mr Mogg asking exactly what additional information was required.

On 7 February, the Beal Valley Action Group’s ‘Financial Report to the European Commission’ was hand delivered to the Directorate-General for Competition.

Further contract by telephone with officials at this Directorate-General has revealed that the Commission still considers that more proof is needed to substantiate the claims made by the Beal Valley Action Group against Oldham Council. However, the Commission has so far been unable to clarify exactly what additional information is required.

Exactly what evidence does the Commission require as proof that a local authority has not properly advertised a contract, given that the same local authority is thereafter likely to seek to disguise this fact from the Commission?

How many actions for failure to properly advertise contracts are currently being pursued?

Finally, when will the Beal Valley Action Group get a full and comprehensive response to the submission to the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

The first issue that needs to be tackled with respect to the ‘Beal Valley’ project concerns the rules applicable to this case. If the estimated value of the contract is over the threshold and a public works contract, in the sense of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (1), has been concluded, then the detailed provisions of the directive would be applicable to this case. If it is a public works contract under the threshold the relevant provisions would be the general rules and principles regarding Community law. C 72 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Two letters were sent to the complainant, namely on 3 September 1999 and 5 October 1999, in order to tackle this first issue. The complainant replied to the first letter on 23 September 1999. The information included in this reply did not bring forward any new elements that would permit further analysis. Therefore, a second letter was addressed to the complainant, asking for further information about the contract value of the works in question and in particular the method used to arrive at any contract valuation.

The complainant sent two replies to the above mentioned second letter. The first reply, dated 29 October 1999, basically consisted of a repetition of the information that had been originally sent. The second reply, dated 7 February 2000, includes new information which is currently under analysis. It would appear from the documents contained in this second reply that a service concession, as that concept is clarified and defined in the Commission interpretative communication on concessions (2) may be involved.

As regards the question concerning the evidence required to examine the alleged infringements, the Commission needs substantiated information showing that an infringement of the public procurement rules has taken place. Otherwise, factual information would be needed in order to have sufficient foundation to address specific issues to the Member State.

Finally, with respect to current actions for failure to properly advertise contracts, there are currently about 228 public procurement infringement cases open, including some involving failure to advertise in the Official journal.

If, as a result of the analysis of the documentation, it appears there has been an infringement of Community law, the Commission will adopt the necessary measures.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993. (2) OJ C 121, 29.4.2000.

(2001/C 72 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1911/00 by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Grants for exchanges

I receive numerous letters complaining at the meagreness of the grants allocated under the Erasmus section of the Socrates programme. In order to remedy this problem, could the Commission consider the possibility of setting up, for example, a European Foundation by means of a public-private partnership, with a view to encouraging young people’s mobility in the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Every year the demand for student mobility under Erasmus rises sharply, while the budget available for mobility grants increases only slightly. The Commission is aware of the repercussions of this imbalance in terms of the level of Erasmus grants and the frustration this can cause. Together with the various interested parties (Socrates/Erasmus national agencies, representatives of the academic world, student associations), it is looking for possible solutions to the problem.

The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that the purpose of Erasmus grants is not to cover all the costs incurred by students during the period spent abroad, but to help offset the additional costs resulting from their being abroad. Financial assistance from sources other than the Community budget is therefore essential, and many countries participating in the Erasmus mobility scheme offer students additional (national, regional or private) funding. This is clear from the survey on the socio-economic background of Erasmus students, the results of which were forwarded to Parliament on 18 January 2000 (1) and are currently being examined by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/149

In its recommendation No 20, the survey emphasises the need to explore other sources of funding for student mobility, including alternative sources of direct or indirect support, such as reduced-price travel tickets, fund raising from industry, business and local government, and the establishing of a system of student loans at national or European level in order to cover the extra costs of mobility. A feasibility study on the latter point has recently been launched.

(1) Report from the Commission: Survey into the socio-economic background of Erasmus students, COM(2000) 4 final.

(2001/C 72 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1921/00 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Loans to Turkey

Can the Commission confirm whether EU loans have been extended to Turkey which include the acquisition of textiles manufacturing machinery?

What effect does the Commission consider that such loans will have on the competitivity of the EU textiles industry?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the Community having made any loans to Turkey for the purpose of acquiring textiles manufacturing machinery. However, in 1997 the Commission did take a financing decision in support of two cooperation projects in the textile and clothing sector. Before taking the final decision, the Commission presented these projects to Parliament, which issued a favourable opinion. The two projects are described below.

The first project relates to the compliance of materials used in the textile sector with environmental standards (implementing authority: Kosgeb, the Turkish SME development agency; total cost: € 2,13 million; Community contribution: € 1 million). The project’s aim is to ensure that the materials used in the textile industry comply with environmental standards, and to help Turkey develop its own capacity in this field. This aim will be achieved by setting up a laboratory, accredited in accordance with standard EN 45001, to serve all SMEs in the textile sector and certify the materials they use according to these environmental standards. The laboratory will be equipped with two work-stations and will be located within TUBITAK’s (Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey) Marmara Research Centre. The laboratory will also provide the opportunity for research to be carried out, under Tubitak’s guidance, into environmentally-friendly products and clean technologies.

The second project concerns vocational training in the clothing sector (implementing authority: KOSGEB, the Turkish SME development agency; total cost: € 2,44 million; Community contribution: € 1,49 million). The project consists in a programme of training in working techniques for the clothing sector (use of sewing machines, cutting, repairs, supervision, management, etc.). It is aimed at young people, and especially young women in the industry who wish to improve their skills.

These decisions were made following the entry into force of the customs union agreement, and their aim is to help Turkish SMEs cope with the new competitive situation created by this agreement. C 72 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/187) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1924/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (16 June 2000)

Subject: Enlargement and decentralisation

In a recent appearance before the European Parliament, Commissioner Günter Verheugen asserted that it was absolutely essential for the countries applying for EU membership to undertake decentralisation and regionalisation.

Why are decentralisation and regionalisation so crucial? Will the Commission say what progress the applicant countries have made towards decentralisation?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (30 June 2000)

The concepts of decentralisation and regionalisation cover a wide range of constitutional realities in the Member States and in the candidate countries. The acquis in this respect is covered in the negotiation chapter dealing with regional policy and the coordination of the structural instruments. The underlying principles include subsidiarity, partnership and effectiveness.

The application of the principle of subsidiarity with respect to regional policy and the structural instruments requires that the implementation of assistance shall be the responsibility of the Member State, at the appropriate territorial level according to the arrangements specific to each Member State.

The principle of partnership refers to close consultation between the Commission and the Member State, together with the authorities and bodies designated by the Member State within the framework of its national rules and current practices, namely: the regional and local authorities and other competent public authorities; the economic and social partners, and any other relevant bodies within this framework (e.g. with responsibility for the environment and for the promotion of equality between women and men). Partnership shall cover the preparation, financing, monitoring and evaluation of assistance.

In order to ensure the respect of the principle of effectiveness in the context of regional policy and the structural instruments, the attention of the candidate countries has been drawn in the relevant negotiation chapter to the importance of having a working capacity at NUTs II (1) level for the implementation of objective 1 programmes.

Candidates have been invited to establish as soon as possible with the Commission (Eurostat) a provisional NUTs classification which reflects the administrative structure and socio-economic statistics available.

(1) NUTs II: nomenclature of the territorial statistical units of the Community.

(2001/C 72 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1925/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission (16 June 2000)

Subject: Recommendation for a gas pipeline for the Balearic Islands

In her comments to the Ultima Hora daily newspaper on 24 May 2000, a minister in the Government of the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands stated that the European Union had recommended to the Government of the Balearic Islands that it opt for the gas pipeline as the most environmentally friendly means of supplying gas to the islands.

1. Has the European Union indeed recommended that the Government of the Balearic Islands use the gas pipeline to supply the islands with gas?

2. Which individuals or body have made the said recommendation? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/151

3. Have any reports or studies led the European Union to take this view?

If so, will the Commission make the relevant reports or studies available?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Commission has made no recommendation to the Government of the Balearic Islands regarding the most appropriate technical solution for bringing natural gas to the islands. As a rule, it falls to the Member States and operators concerned to choose among the options for implementing energy projects.

The Commission does favour the introduction of natural gas in regions which do not have it, and therefore favours the project to introduce it in the Balearic Islands, in an economic and environment- friendly manner. Accordingly, and in line with a request from the Spanish Government, the Commission will, when the Community guidelines on trans-European energy networks are next reviewed, propose that the project to introduce natural gas to the Balearic Islands be included in one or other of the projects of common interest. This will be without prejudice to whatever technical solution is eventually chosen, i.e. connection by gas pipeline or the construction of a liquid natural gas terminal.

To date the Commission has received no details of the project.

(2001/C 72 E/189) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1930/00 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Equal Initiative in the Netherlands

It is clear from a letter of 30 September 1999, from the then Netherlands Minister for Social Affairs and Employment to the Netherlands Government, that the Netherlands Government is planning to allocate the funds which the Netherlands is hoping to obtain from the Equal Initiative primarily to projects on behalf of asylum-seekers.

1. Can the Commission guarantee that the Netherlands will participate in all the pillars of the Equal Programme in a financially balanced way?

2. How does the Commission propose to safeguard the cross-border aspect between Member States in the case of projects for asylum-seekers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

1. When dealing with projects under the Community Initiative Programme (CIP), the Commission will verify that the proposed measures and the associated budgets have a direct bearing on the scope and specific problems of the labour market in each Member State.

The Community Initiative EQUAL is based on a thematic approach in the context of the four pillars of the European strategy for employment (eight themes) and on education and training measures in favour of asylum seekers.

Under no circumstances, and despite the relatively large number of asylum seekers in the Netherlands, will the measures and financial resources earmarked for this target group adversely affect the eight themes of the pillars of the European strategy for employment. The five-month negotiation period with the Commission will make it possible to prepare a single EQUAL planning document. C 72 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

2. The EQUAL programme does not in any way call into question the national provisions applicable to asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are required to conform with the rules and specific legislation in force in the different Member States in all circumstances.

Transnational cooperation in the context of EQUAL takes on several forms and is not confined to the physical mobility of the final beneficiaries. Experience with ADAPT and EMPLOI has shown that different types of transnational actions can be developed including the simple exchange of experience and information; the development of innovative approaches in parallel; the adoption or transfer of new methodologies; joint developments with sharing of tasks, and, finally, the exchange of trainees and management personnel.

(2001/C 72 E/190) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1939/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Budget Item A-3021

‘Organisations advancing the idea of Europe’ are allocated € 1 800 000 from Item A-3021. Could the Commission indicate which organisations receive this money and the projects in which they are involved?

To whom are these organisations accountable, and what systems are in place to monitor this use of Community funds?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The grants awarded under budget line A-3021 are published every year in the annual ‘Report on Beneficiaries of Part A Commission Grants’ which the Commission sends to Parliament and which is also published on Europa, the Commission’s server at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/beneficiaries_en.htm.

In fact, 14 of the organisations receiving a grant in 1999 were earmarked by Parliament in the remarks to the Budget rather than selected by the Commission, amounting to 85 % of the total appropriations on the line.

Organisations receiving a grant under budget line A-3021, like all organisations receiving a grant from the Commission, are required to submit both an activity and a financial report on the use of their grant. This has to be approved by the Commission before the final instalment is paid. Organisations are also subject to on-the-spot inspections by the Commission and are liable to auditing by the Court of auditors.

(2001/C 72 E/191) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1940/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Budget items relating to culture

Could the Commission indicate the structure and aims of the ‘Our Europe’ Association, which receives Community funding from Item A-3020?

Why was this organisation in particular chosen for a European grant? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/153

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (18 July 2000)

The association ‘Our Europe’ was set up in 1996 as a non-profit-making organisation registered under the French Law of 1901 as the ‘Groupement d’Etudes et de Recherches: Notre Europe’. Its object, as set out in its registered articles of association, is: ‘To conduct studies, research and training on Europe, its past, its civilisations, its progress towards unity and its future prospects. The association develops its action in the spirit of a closer, federal union between the peoples of Europe, comprising a common defence and a single currency, upholding the Community acquis and underpinned by common policies that promote full employment, competitiveness and solidarity. To that end, it organises educational activities and conferences, conducts studies and consultations, issues publications, mounts information campaigns, awards grants and prizes, and carries out any other activities of European interest.’

The association was given its own heading in Chapter A-30 of the budget in 1997 in agreement with both the Council and Parliament, which considered that its activities would make it a useful think-tank on the process of building Europe.

(2001/C 72 E/192) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1941/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission (16 June 2000)

Subject: Budget Item A-3025

‘Journalists in Europe’ are allocated € 250 000 from Item A-3025. Could the Commission indicate exactly how these funds are used and to whom it is allocated?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (13 September 2000)

The funds provided under Item A-3025 are intended to cover the Commission’s financial contribution to the association ‘Journalists in Europe’.

The aim of this association is to help journalists from various countries throughout the world to get to know Europe, the various countries of which it is made up, its common institutions and its history.

To this end, the association organises study programmes and courses providing a knowledge and understanding of Europe, not only of its economic and social characteristics but also of its cultural and political aspects. It organises meetings and publishes documents relating to its aims. It also awards grants to allow journalists to take part in its activities.

Since its foundation in 1974, ‘Journalists in Europe’ has received 707 journalists from 98 countries.

(2001/C 72 E/193) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1944/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission (16 June 2000)

Subject: Compatibility with the single European market of the ‘golden share’ retained by the Spanish Government in the merger between Telefónica and KPN

The Spanish Government has made frequent use of the so-called ‘golden share’ to prevent Spanish firms merging with foreign firms. Recent cases have included Telefónica and KPN and the block on the acquisition of Hidrocantábrico by a company in which EDF (Electricité de France) was involved. C 72 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

The Court of Justice recently penalised Italy for use of the golden share. In the Commission’s opinion, has the Spanish Government engaged in the same practices for which Italy was penalised in its use of the golden share?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

While according to the information supplied to the Commission, the Spanish government did not formally adopt any measure aiming at blocking the merger mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that the rights given to national authorities to veto certain major company decisions are, as a rule, not compatible with the EC Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital. The Court of justice has consistently maintained, that national measures liable, as it is the case for the right of veto in question, to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty must fulfil four conditions: they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; they must be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.

In this respect, the Commission opened infringement proceedings against Spain concerning the privatisation framework law (Law No 5/1995) and following the reasoned opinion delivered in July 1999, decided on 5 July 2000 to refer Spain to the Court of justice.

(2001/C 72 E/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1945/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Acquisitions in the Spanish market in electricity generation

The Spanish press reported that the Competition Court was opposed to the acquisition of Hidrocantábrico by Unión Fenosa on the grounds that, were it to go ahead, only three competitors would remain in the Spanish electricity market and it would be difficult for new companies to enter the market.

Will this have an impact on the Commission’s calculations of CTCs?

Has the Commission requested a copy of the Court’s report for inclusion in the file?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the acquisition of Hidroeléctrica del Catábrico by Unión Eléctrica Fenosa did not go ahead and so did not have any impact on the costs of transition to competition since the situation on the Spanish electricity market remains unchanged.

Since the reports by the Competition Court are normally made public, the Commission did not deem it necessary to make a formal request for a copy of the report. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/155

(2001/C 72 E/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1946/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Assessment of the costs of transition to competition in the acquisition of a Spanish electricity firm

According to information in the Spanish press, the purchase price of Hidrocantábrica by Unión Fenosa increased by Ptas 200 000 million as a result of the assessment of its CTCs.

In the Commission’s opinion, is this relevant to an assessment of the compatibility of these aids with the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

It was widely reported in the press that the acquisition of a Spanish electricity firm to which the Honourable Member refers did not go ahead in the end because the Spanish authorities were unwilling to authorise it. Under the circumstances, the Commission takes the view that the question as to the impact, if any, of the operation on the costs of transition to competition (CTCs) in the Spanish electricity market is of no relevance.

In such an operation the purchase price is freely determined by the parties involved, who value the target business in the light of their own criteria. Such criteria could in no way commit the Commission, which has not yet taken any decision on CTCs from the viewpoint of state aid.

(2001/C 72 E/196) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1948/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 June 2000)

Subject: Restitution of real property expropriated by the Yugoslavian Communist regime

Slovenian law provides at present that real property expropriated by the Communist regime must be restored to its rightful owners or their heirs and successors.

Under that law only persons who were Yugoslavian citizens at the date of expropriation are deemed to be entitled to such restitution.

As a result, all persons who did not have Yugoslavian citizenship at that time are barred from restitution, even though they are Italian citizens or nationals of other Community Member States.

Objective discrimination of this kind based on a citizenship requirement for recognition of the right to the restitution of expropriated property is clearly in breach both of the general principles of international law and of the specific Community rules prohibiting discrimination against individuals on grounds of nationality in the exercise of their property rights.

Can the Commission state:

whether, during the negotiations in progress between the Community and the Republic of Slovenia with a view to an association agreement with the latter, an item has been placed on the agenda requiring the removal from the Slovenian legal system of all discrimination against European citizens in the implementation of the procedure governing the restitution, in kind or equivalent, of real property expropriated by the Yugoslavian Communist regime?

if this issue is already the subject of negotiations, what stage has been reached in those negotiations? C 72 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

The accession negotiations embrace all areas of Community legislation and policy, that is the ‘acquis’, which each applicant will have to adopt and implement fully by the time of accession to the Union. Property restitution is not covered by the ‘acquis’ and the matter is not currently being dealt with in the accession negotiations.

The Commission is following the developments with regard to restitution of property in the context of its bilateral relations with Slovenia. This issue has recently been raised at the last meeting of the Community- Slovenia Association Council held in Luxembourg on 14 June 2000 where the Commission recommended to Slovenia to speed up the process of property restitution and to clarify the legal situation in this respect.

(2001/C 72 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1949/00 by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Biomedical ethics and bioethics

One of the aims of the European Parliament and Council Decision No 182/1999/EC (1)of 22 December 1998 concerning the fifth framework programme for research is ‘the study of problems relating to biomedical ethics and bioethics in the context of respect for fundamental human values.’

I have the impression, however, that this area has gradually been downgraded in terms of priority. While the fourth framework programme for research had an allocation of € 30 million, the fifth framework programme has only € 10 million. Of this sum only € 2,5 million had been distributed at the time of the last disbursement, which means that only very few projects can benefit.

Firstly, how and to what extent was the GAEIB’s opinion No 10 taken as the basis for the current priorities in this area and, secondly, how does the Commission envisage biomedical ethics and bioethics being retained as a research sector?

(1) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Honourable Member correctly points out that under the fifth framework programme for research the level of financial support so far attributed to the study of problems relating to ‘biomedical ethics and bioethics in the context of fundamental human values’ has been at a lower level than in the previous framework programme.

This is mainly due to the limited funding available for the whole area of generic activities in the programme ‘Quality of life and management of living resources’ (QoL) of which research on biomedical ethics and bioethics is just one part.

As outlined in the Commission’s communication of January 2000 on the European research area (1), the Commission attaches great importance to the development of a shared vision on ethical issues in Europe, especially in the context of life sciences. Research on bio-ethics will play an indispensable role in this context.

Opinion No 10 of the Group of advisors for the ethical implications of biotechnology had indeed drawn the attention of the Commission to the necessity of research. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/157

The Commission is examining means of redistributing priorities within the generic activities of the QoL programme, perhaps by means of additional calls for proposals for research on biomedical ethics and bioethics, in line with the realization of the concept of a European research area.

(1) COM(2000) 6 final.

(2001/C 72 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1955/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Compensation for mussel farmers in Northern Greece

Shell-fish producers in the Thessalonki and Piria regions have incurred heavy losses of income owing to problems in these sea areas. Furthermore, unless the dead shell-fish (mussels) are gathered up by the fish farms, serious environmental problems will arise due to the decomposition of the mussels on the sea-bed.

1. Has Greece submitted an application for the compensation of mussel farmers who have suffered losses?

2. Given the danger of environmental damage to the sea areas of Thessaloniki and Piria area, is there any prospect of funding for the work needed to clear the sea of the dead shell-fish?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

1. Greece has notified the Commission of a projected state aid scheme aimed at enabling the Greek Government to grant assistance to mussel farmers and mussel fishermen in the Gulf of Thermaikos on account of the contamination of mussel production.

This notification was registered on 26 May 2000 and is currently being examined by the Commission.

2. On the basis of a decision to be taken at national level, measures aimed at restructuring and improving the contaminated areas could benefit from assistance under Council Regulation(EC) No 2792/ 1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (1) within the context of the structural operational programme for fisheries.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2001/C 72 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1956/00 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Professional affiliations and backgrounds of the members of the expert panel on Atomic Energy Questions

Will the Commission list the present members of the expert panel on Atomic Energy Questions along with their professional affiliations and backgrounds and state what consideration has been given to appointing qualified members of Non-Governmental Organisations to the AEQ panel and to encouraging Member States to make such recommendations? C 72 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The Atomic Questions group is a working party made up of representatives of the Member States, whose task is to prepare Council decisions in the nuclear field. The Council alone is responsible for appointing the members of the group. Therefore only the Council can answer the Honourable Member’s question.

(2001/C 72 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1962/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Use of tuna loin quotas

In its reply to Question E-1087/00 (1) the Commission invites the author thereof ‘to make a careful reading of the study which the Commission has had drawn up on the topic’. Irrespective of the fact that a careful reading of the study is what prompted not only Question E-1087/00 but also the other three which the author has tabled on the same topic, and irrespective of the fact that the doubts expressed in those questions have occurred not only to the author thereof but also to the Community fisheries and processing sector, to certain representatives of ACP and GSP countries and even to other MEPs (as illustrated by the documentation provided by the Commission itself), the Commission’s reply adds an interesting item of information as regards the use by the Community industry of tuna loin quotas. However, since what is no doubt a transcription error has occurred which cannot be clarified solely by means of ‘a careful reading of the study which the Commission has had drawn up’, would the Commission say what it means when it states that ‘the 1997 tuna loin quota was used at a rate of 56 % by Italy and 44 % by Italy’?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 121.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The Commission has already apologised to the Honourable Member for the error in the answer it addressed to her and informed her that this should have referred to Spain (56 %) and Italy (44 %).

(2001/C 72 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1967/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: New policy on Indonesia

On 12 April, the Commission replied to my question (P-0926/00) (1) on new relations between the EU and Indonesia.

The Commission’s reply was not entirely clear in respect of certain questions raised.

In a clearly delicate and sensitive area, it is essential that it be made totally clear that the new EU policy on Indonesia will depend, inter alia, on:

1. A guarantee that there will be full, unrestricted repatriation of the tens of thousands of East Timorese who wish to return, without any type of coercion or discriminatory treatment with regard to acquired rights and without any disinformation, conditions regarding or involvement of the ‘militias’ and former TNI; 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/159

2. A guarantee that directly or indirectly, support from Indonesian military groups to the ‘militias’, or any other provocateurs capable of destabilising the area, has ceased entirely.

In view of all the violence which the Timorese have suffered, it is utterly essential that the European Union and the whole human-rights-supporting international community should not forget the facts of what actually happened, and must be particularly demanding and rigorous in these areas; effective means of verifying on the spot that the situation is genuinely developing in a positive way are required.

Is the Commission able to give an absolutely clear and firm assurance that such minimum guarantees will be consistently demanded and effectively verified on the ground, as a precondition for developing a new policy on Indonesia designed to encourage the consolidation of civil democracy in that country, full self- determination and progress for East Timor, and peaceful conditions throughout the region?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 79.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern for a speedy solution to the problem of refugees in West Timor. It should be stressed that responsibility for implementing voluntary repatriation and for the safety of refugees in camps in West Timor still lies with the Indonesian Government. It is vital that the refugees be given free and objective information on the current situation in East Timor to allow them to choose freely whether they wish to return or to be resettled in Indonesia. The Commission is sorry to say that this condition has not been met.

The Commission has pointed out to the Indonesian authorities that it is willing to assist the bodies responsible for setting up a voluntary repatriation programme. The Commission has also taken the initiative, together with the Member States and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), of examining the scope for assisting some of the displaced persons to resettle in Indonesia.

(2001/C 72 E/202) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1968/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: East Timor’s accession to the Lomé Convention

Paragraph 15 of the European Parliament’s resolution on East Timor of 18 November 1999 (B5-0271/ 1999) states that ‘The European Parliament calls on the Commission to begin preparations to East Timor to join the Lomé Convention’.

Six months later, what specific steps has the Commission already taken to prepare for East Timor joining the Lomé Convention? On this issue, how does the Commission view the current stage reached and the immediate prospects for the future?

(2001/C 72 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1969/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Contributions to East Timor from the European Union and its Member States

The recently published European Parliament report on the visit to Indonesia and East Timor from 16 to 21 April by a Parliamentary Delegation mentions that the contributions promised by the European Union C 72 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

for reconstruction in East Timor had not yet been made available. Mrs Catherine Walker, head of the Donors’ Coordination Unit in Dili has stated that the EU had committed itself to contributing US$ 9,8 million and US$ 58,9 million for the UNTAET Trust Fund and the World Bank Trust Fund respectively. Mrs Sara Cliffe, head of the World Bank office in East Timor, confirming that the Commission had not yet paid its contribution, apparently said that these EU funds might be made available in May.

This delay in the handing over of promised contributions appears also to involve specific contributions from certain Member States, particularly Germany.

Paragraph 14 of the European Parliament resolution on East Timor on 18 November (B5-0271/1999) stressed the need to make European Union budgetary resources for East Timor available as a matter of urgency.

The fact that many donors are behind schedule, and thus holding up the reconstruction of the country, is a recognised major contributory factor in the instability, uncertainty and insecurity in the territory. Over and above the observations already made in this respect by international officials, the repeated appeals and warnings issued by Timorese are extremely pathetic and insistent.

Why has there been such a delay on the part of the EU? What is the state of play in terms of volume of funds and the timetable for their becoming effectively available, of the contribution promised by the European Union to East Timor? What steps has the Commission taken in this regard, both with regard to the speed of processing the EU contributions and likewise encouraging equal dispatch on the part of the Member States which have undertaken a like commitment? Can the Commission guarantee that from now on, the EU will act in an exemplary manner in this highly sensitive area?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1968/00 and E-1969/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

The Commission shares the opinion of the international community that the question of whether East Timor should sign the Lomé Convention is a matter for political decision by the future East Timorese Government. Once an independent State of East Timor has been constituted, its Government will have to assess which regional economic group is most suited to furthering East Timorese interests. When that time comes, the Commission will certainly provide the East Timorese Government with the appropriate information.

With regard to the Community’s contribution to the rehabilitation of East Timor, the Commission can confirm that the contribution to the United Nations’ trust fund (for UNTAET, the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor), some € 10 million, was transferred to the recipient in the first half of June 2000 and that the first tranche of the contribution to the World Bank’s Trust Fund for East Timor (TFET), some € 9,2 million, will be paid as soon as the financial agreement with the administrator of that fund has been signed and a request for payment has been received. The agreement is expected to be signed in July 2000. The other tranches will be paid subsequently, as provided for in the financial agreement. As to the contributions of the Member States, the Commission regrets that it does not have a complete list.

(2001/C 72 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1982/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Legal challenges to the extension of An Post’s contract to provide social welfare payments in Ireland

This question is tabled further to Written Question E-0463/00, tabled by Avril Doyle to the Commission on 24 February 2000, and the subsequent answer from the Commission (1). Bearing in mind the legal challenges made by a firm of Dublin-based solicitors (2) to the extension of An Post’s contract to issue social welfare payments in Ireland and the importance of such a service to the vitality of rural post offices 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/161

and rural communities, would the Commission outline the current status of the legal challenges, confirm whether it has yet gathered all the information it requested before it could investigate the matter fully, state its position on the case and, if no such position can be conveyed at present, confirm a date when the Commission will announce its decision?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 81. (2) McCann Fitzgerald Solicitors, on behalf of Transaction Network Services, Dublin.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

Further to the answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-463/00, the Honourable Member is informed that the Commission is at the moment in the process of gathering additional information, necessary to investigate the allegations made by Transaction Network Services Limited. The Commission hopes to come to a position on the complaint immediately after receiving this additional information.

(2001/C 72 E/205) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1985/00 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Irresponsibility and risks concerning mad cow disease in Spain

The European Union’s Scientific Committee, the highest of the bodies responsible for monitoring Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), has revealed that the fact that Spain has imported cattle from Great Britain classes it among those countries where this serious disease is likely to be present. Is there a risk that animals in Spain may be infected with BSE? How many cattle have been imported? What steps should be taken to avoid this risk? Have there been any confirmed cases of BSE in Spain? Is the Commission aware that the Spanish ministry has reacted furiously to this European report, which it considers irresponsible?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

1. and 2. The report to which the Honourable Member refers is a draft report from the scientific steering committee (SSC), that has been put on Internet, on request of this committee, with the invitation to provide new factual scientific information, before its finalisation.

The question on the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk in Spain and on the most critical imports to Spain and their order of magnitude cannot be finally answered before the final version of the report of the scientific steering committee on the geographical risk in Spain is available.

3. The removal and destruction of specified risk materials from animals at slaughter is the single most important public health protection measure where a risk of BSE infected animals being slaughtered cannot be excluded. Such measures will be mandatory in all Member States as of 1 October 2000. Other measures, such as banning the use of mammalian meat-and-bone meal in ruminant feed, appropriate heat treatment of meat-and-bone meal intended for the feeding of other animal species and banning the export of live bovine animals and bovine products from countries with a high incidence of BSE have already been implemented by the Community. Furthermore the surveillance of BSE in all Member States will be enhanced by the introduction of rapid post mortem tests as of 1 January 2001. C 72 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

4. There are no confirmed BSE cases in Spain.

5. The Commission is aware that the Spanish Minister has qualified the report as irresponsible. The Commission underlines that the draft report is from the scientific steering committee that advises the Commission, inter alia, on all matters relating to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), including BSE. This body is independent and acts as transparently as possible, as requested by, among others, the Parliament. In order to give all interested parties an opportunity to compare the assessments of different Member States the SSC has decided to publish the draft reports together with a preliminary opinion on the Internet. It has indicated its intention to take due account of all comments received before 20 June 2000, as long as they relate to risk assessment and not to risk management. The Commission is aware that the scientific steering committee has seriously discussed the issue of this publication. It came to the conclusion that it should go ahead in order to respect its responsibilities with regard to the transparency of its work.

(2001/C 72 E/206) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1988/00 by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Internal market: delays in transposing European directives

Statements have been published to the effect that the Member States have been cutting back on their efforts to transpose European internal market legislation into national law within the corresponding time- limits.

The gap between Member States applying single market legislation (particularly Sweden, Finland and Spain) and those delaying transposition (four countries Greece, Portugal, France and Luxembourg account for over 40 % of delays) has widened dramatically.

Given that Portugal is among the countries with the worst deficit:

can the Commission clarify whether the above statements are accurate with regard to Portugal?

can it provide a list of all directives (regardless of the area concerned) awaiting transposition in Portugal, indicating the subject and the length of the delay in each case?

can it provide a breakdown of these directives in order of urgency, based on the importance which it attaches to each case?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

The single market scoreboard report (1), shows an increasing gap between Member States implementing internal market legislation in a timely way and those accumulating delays. On 15 April 2000, the cut off date for transposition data used in the scoreboard, Greece, France, Luxembourg and Portugal accounted for 44 % of all cases of delayed transposition (344 overdue implementing measures out of a total of 786).

The list of directives overdue in Portugal is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. It is not possible to provide a breakdown in order of urgency. Member States are under a legal obligation to implement all directives on time. Failure to do so results in the opening of infringement proceedings by the Commission in accordance with Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) SEC(2000) 879. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/163

(2001/C 72 E/207) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1992/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (21 June 2000)

Subject: TvDanmark

On 5 April 2000, the Danish TV station, TvDanmark A/S, lodged a complaint with the Commission against Danish TV2 accusing the station of using its privileged position on the Danish commercial TV market in a manner that distorts competition.

When does the Commission expect to reach a decision on the TvDanmark A/S complaint against TV2 for distortion of competition and failure to keep licensing and advertising revenue separate?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (28 July 2000)

The Commission confirms that it has received a complaint from TvDanmark concerning infringements of Community competition rules by the public broadcaster TV2.

As regards both the state aid and the antitrust aspects of the complaint, the Commission has started to analyse the allegations, in order to assess whether they may be relevant under Articles 82, 86 and 87 EC Treaty (ex Articles 86, 90 and 92).

At this stage, and taking into account the complexity of the matter, the Commission is examining whether a formal investigation procedure is necessary. It is not possible to provide any timetable for a decision at this stage.

(2001/C 72 E/208) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1994/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (21 June 2000)

Subject: Urban waste water treatment systems in Greece

Under Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1), Greece is required to install urban waste water treatment systems in all agglomerations with a population exceeding 2000 throughout its territory by the year 2005.

Can the Commission provide the following information: 1. How many agglomerations with a population exceeding 2000 have been linked up to urban waste water treatment systems? 2. How many Greek agglomerations will have been linked up to urban waste water systems by the year 2005? 3. What are the dangers for Greece arising from failure to comply with Council Directive 91/271/EEC?

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (28 July 2000)

As stated by the Honourable Member, Directive 91/271/EEC on the treatment of urban waste water requires Member States to ensure that all settlements having more than 2000 inhabitant equivalents. are provided with urban waste water collection and treatment systems. An inhabitant equivalent is a unit for measuring the organic pollution representing the average pollution produced per person per day. C 72 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

The deadlines for that provision are 31 December 1998, 31 December 2000 and 31 December 2005, depending upon the size of the settlement and the sensitivity of the recipient water.

It should be noted that the size of the settlement to be taken into account when designing systems must include not only the corresponding load from the residents in the settlement concerned, but also that corresponding to the seasonal population and to the industrial waste water load fed into the urban waste- water system.

The Commission is currently examining the situation in built-up areas in the Member States in terms of the Directive’s first deadline 31 December 1998 which concerns settlements of more than 10 000 IEs which discharge into sensitive areas and their catchment areas. In early 2001 it will publish a report on the current situation as regards the collection and treatment of waste waters in all the of the settlements concerned. According to the information received from the Greek authorities there are 29 settlements with more than 10 000 IE in Greece which discharge their waste water into sensitive recipients and their catchment areas.

The Greek authorities have also stated that the 797 Greek settlements with more than 2000 IEs covered by the Directive will comply with that Directive’s requirements on 31 December 2005. The Commission will subsequently check that the 31 December 2000 and 31 December 2005 deadlines are met.

If the obligations under the directive were not met the Commission could bring an infringement action against the Member State (concerned).

(2001/C 72 E/209) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1996/00 by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Price differences for the posting of printed matter

At present, there are wide price differences for the posting and distribution of magazines on subscription between the United Kingdom and Ireland. In the context of the recently announced proposals for liberalisation of the postal service market, what solution to this problem does the Commission envisage?

Reply by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

In general in the Community, postage rates for magazines sold by subscription differ considerably depending on whether they are sent to an address in the same country or to an address in another Community country. This is indeed the case for postal rates between Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Unlike domestic rates, cross-border postage rates are dependent, following international agreements, on changes in the end costs which the dispatching postal service of one Member State must pay to the postal service of the other Member State responsible for distribution. Since rates must be geared to actual costs, as laid down in Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (1) for services falling within the universal service, this rate distinction is not in breach of Community law. It is for the national regulatory authorities of each Member State to ensure compliance with obligations under the Directive.

Since Directive 97/67/EC has already determined the principles on which postage rates are to be based, it is not planned to deal with this question again in the proposed amendment to this Directive.

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/165

(2001/C 72 E/210) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1998/00 by Didier Rod (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: DG I contracts involving subsidies to Brazilian NGOs

Three years ago the Commission (DG I) signed a number of contracts with Brazilian NGOs operating in the area of the environment. Since those contracts were signed, no further information and no funds have been forwarded to the intended beneficiaries (e.g. Ecotropica, an NGO operating in Mato Grosso State (Contract No BR97/023/B7-E201/04) and WWF Brazil, in Brasilia).

Can the Commission explain the reasons for this delay and give an account of its policy on environmental protection and NGOs in the countries of Latin America? Can it state what action it will take in honouring the above contracts?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission has not signed contracts with Brazilian environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for any of the projects mentioned, or for others in the same ‘package’. Thus there is as yet no contractual obligation with the partner NGOs for the implementation of the project proposals.

The proposals in question were accepted in principle for financing. They form part of a package which includes the NGO projects and a technical assistance facility for co-ordination, the latter requiring a formal agreement with the Brazilian government. The unconventional design of the project has led to difficulties on both sides in finalising arrangements. The package will be re-examined in the near future by the Commission with a view to deciding the most appropriate course of action.

The Commission has financed a large number of NGO activities in Latin America dealing with environmental actions, mainly through the tropical forests, environment and NGO co-financing lines. Last year over € 22 million of NGO projects in Brazil were funded through the NGO co-financing line alone. The role of civil society in environmental protection and sustainable development is widely recognised in Latin America and in the Commission’s policy. Amongst examples of projects funded by the Commission are the COAMA project in the Colombian Amazon (winner of the Right Livelihood award in 1999), and a project with a Brazilian NGO to protect the uncontacted Indians of the Javari area in Brazil.

(2001/C 72 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2001/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Lack of information from European railway operators in international train timetables

1. Cross-border passenger train connections between European Union countries are often underused. The sharp increase in traffic on such journeys is accounted for mainly by car and air travel, not by trains. The reasons include the ‘premiums’ charged by railway operators over and above their standard fares on cross-border services and the poor availability of timetabling information from railway operators in countries other than their own. Does the Commission agree that it would be desirable for as many as possible of the existing obstacles to cross-border passenger travel by train to be removed? C 72 E/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

2. French, Spanish, Italian and British railways were unable to forward their new timetabling information to railway operators in other European countries in good time for the introduction of the new timetables on 28 May 2000, with the result that no train services to the above four countries could be included in the international timetables issued in those other countries. What action will the Commission take to put a definite end to that situation not later than 9 June 2001 (the next date for introducing new timetables) and to ensure that principal rail connections between European Union countries will be included in good time in each country’s timetable of international services?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the information policy of railway undertakings as well as co-ordination among them has not proved effective in many cases. This is in particular true for questions related to timetables, train operations and other operational rules. The Commission is however not in a position to force undertakings, on the basis of current legislation, to adopt a certain policy in view of their customers and other undertakings. The Commission would like to recall that railway undertakings have been given management independence by way of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (1).

Referring to the obstacles to cross-border rail transport, be they technical or organisational, the Commission would like to point out that it proposed in November 1999 measures to raise the interoperability of conventional (i.e. all non-high-speed) rail transport (2).

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. (2) COM(1999) 617 final.

(2001/C 72 E/212) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2002/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) and Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Loss of direct rail link between the Netherlands and the German border town of Emmerich in November 2000

1. Can the Commission confirm that its policy continues to include efforts to bring areas along the borders of EU Member States out of their isolation at the same time as promoting cross-border public transport by train?

2. Is the Commission aware that with effect from 5 November 2000, EC trains between Amsterdam (NL) and Cologne (D) will no longer stop at the station in the German border town of Emmerich because it will no longer be necessary to change locomotives there, owing to the introduction the new, ICE 3M, rolling stock, even although the timetabled waiting time of 8 to 10 minutes in Emmerich will be retained, so that the only difference will be that passengers will no longer be able to leave or board the train in Emmerich? Is it further aware that the kilometrage for fare-calculation purposes from the Netherlands to Emmerich was also increased, as at 28 May 2000, on the grounds that the ICE service was being introduced in November?

3. Does the Commission consider it acceptable for a border town like Emmerich not only to lose its fast direct train service to Germany, making it less accessible from the direction of Cologne and Düsseldorf, but for the direct connection between Emmerich and the Netherlands to be completely cut off, with the result that passengers wishing to make that journey by train will henceforward have to put up with a diversion lasting more than one hour via Wesel, a good half-hour’s travelling time from Emmerich?

4. Does the Commission share my view that the loss of the above stopping service at Emmerich would only be acceptable if it were to be replaced by substitute services, for example by extending Netherlands local trains to Emmerich or extending German local trains as far as Zevenaar or Arnhem in the Netherlands? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/167

5. What action will the Commission take to prevent long-term deterioration in cross-border rail traffic, also taking into account the fact that the cross-border local trains between Mons (B) and Aulnoye (F), introduced in 1996 to compensate for the loss of the old route between Paris and Brussels, were also withdrawn on 28 May 2000?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for the information given and fully understands that the situation described leads to problems for people in the area in question who depend on rail services to a greater or lesser extent.

The Commission tries in general to encourage railway undertakings to be much more receptive to the needs and intentions of customers but would like to recall that the commercial decision of a railway undertaking whether to let a certain train stop or not stop at any given station cannot formally be influenced or changed by the Commission. This is due to the management independence of railway undertakings granted to them by way of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (1).

Only the Member State in question could impose such a stop in the light of public service obligations.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2001/C 72 E/213) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2004/00 by Margot Keßler (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Proposal for a Council Regulation determining the list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement

1. When is the regulation scheduled to enter into force so that Bulgaria is no longer on the list of countries for whose nationals a visa is required?

2. Is it not true that the opting-out provisions applicable to the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland are resulting in a multi -speed Europe and what message is this sending to the applicant countries?

3. In view of the numerous exemptions, the regulation appears to be of very limited value. Does it therefore still serve any useful purpose?

4. A change in political circumstances should alter the listing of a Member State accordingly in other words, how quickly is it possible for a country to move from one list to the other?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

1. The Commission presented a proposal for a Council Regulation listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement on 26 January (1). The proposal is being examined by the Council and by Parliament. The Commission is unable to offer any prior opinion as to when the Regulation will enter into force. C 72 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

2. The applicant countries cannot rely on the Protocols on the position of Denmark and on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, which are annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty. What is more, the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union stipulates that ‘the Schengen acquis and further measures taken by the institutions within its scope shall be regarded as an acquis which must be accepted in full by all States candidates for admission.’

3. In the Commission’s proposal, the possible exemptions and derogations available to Member States for certain categories of persons correspond to practices enshrined in international law or to usage based on international custom.

4. Articles 62, 64 and 67 (formerly Articles 73 J, 73 L and 73 O of the EC Treaty lay down the procedure whereby a third country can move from the list of countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas to the list of countries whose nationals are exempt from that requirement.

(1) COM(2000) 27 final.

(2001/C 72 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2005/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Law No 196 of the 1997 TREU Package

Given that the Official Journal of the European Communities (1) publishes the Commission decision of 11 May 1999 (2000/128/EC) concerning aid granted by Italy to promote employment through training and work experience contracts, both as regards fixed-term contracts awarded since November 1995 and as regards the conversion of such contracts from fixed-term contracts to open-ended contracts under Article 15 of Law No 196 of 24 June 1997 (TREU Package), and in view of the fact that the Mezzogiorno is one of the regions of Europe with the highest level of unemployment, that there are numerous businesses in the Mezzogiorno which have entered into training and work experience contracts since November 1995 under an Italian law (L 863/84) which laid down access requirements and implementation arrangements at odds with those established by the Commission, that such businesses would be heavily penalised merely for complying with the laws of the Italian State, that the punitive recovery of the aid granted to those businesses, over the past 15 years, would mean their certain financial collapse and the further loss of thousands of jobs, what decisions does the Commission intend to take in order to prevent possible damage to the businesses of the Mezzogiorno?

(1) OJ L 42, 15.2.2000.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

By decision of 11 May 1999 (2000/128/EC) concerning aid granted by Italy to promote employment (1), the Commission found that the aid for recruitment through training and work experience contracts was compatible with the common market provided it concerned the creation of new jobs within the recipient firm for workers who had not yet found employment or had lost their previous job, or the recruitment of workers experiencing particular difficulties in entering or re-entering the labour market. As regards aid to help convert training and work experience contracts into open-ended contracts, the Commission found that it was compatible with the common market provided it satisfied the obligation to achieve a net increase in stable employment in relation to jobs already existing in the firm.

All aid for recruitment through training and work experience contracts and for the conversion of training and work experience contracts into open-ended contracts that did not comply with the above-mentioned requirements was deemed incompatible with the common market; it must therefore be recovered in order to restore the competition that existed before the unlawful aid adversely affected Community trade and distorted competition. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/169

In its decision on the aid scheme described above, the Commission took account of the specific problems relating to the economic and employment situation in the Mezzogiorno.

As regards the aid deemed incompatible with the common market, Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2) states that, where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission must decide that the Member State concerned take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.

(1) OJ L 42, 15.2.2000. (2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(2001/C 72 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2010/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Changing old coins into euros

No later than 1 January 2002, the old currencies in the euro zone will be changed directly into euros. According to information from Regional Central Banks in Germany, no scheme has yet been devised for changing foreign coins i.e. coins from other Member States in the euro zone into euros. It is quite probable that European citizens are holding in their pockets and purses foreign coins worth billions.

The Commission:

1. What does it think should happen with such coins?

2. Should not the various Central Banks be required by law to change into euros (banknotes and coins) not only banknotes from other countries in the euro zone but also coins from other countries in the euro zone?

3. What specific measures is the European Commission intending to take on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

It is worth recalling that it has so far generally not been possible in any Member State of the euro zone to exchange coins of another Member State. The questions therefore are whether such a new service should be established on the occasion of the introduction of euro coins, what its price and its modalities should be and who should bear the costs. In view of the logistical problems of handling various coin denominations, the conversion of the stocks which exist in the Community would probably require substantial resources, regardless of whether the service would be provided by the private or the public sector, including central banks. However, the Commission is aware of the problem and is examining how to find a solution which is both economically sensible and satisfactory for the citizens.

(2001/C 72 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2016/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: EU shipbuilding industry

In his reply to my question E-2795/99 (1), Commissioner Monti said that while under Council Regulation 1540/98 (2) establishing new rules on aid for shipbuilding operating aid is to be abolished at the end of 2000, the same Regulation also ‘provides for a range of other aids that may be granted to shipbuilding C 72 E/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

subject to certain conditions up until 2003, including closure and restructuring aids, aids for research and development, aids for innovation, and regional investment aids for upgrading or modernising existing yards’.

Can the Commission state whether this is a closed list of the types of aid that may be authorised up to 2003, or whether other forms of aid to protect the EU shipbuilding industry may in fact be permitted, particularly in the event of South Korea continuing with its practices of unfair competition in shipbuilding after September 2000?

Can the Commission state whether it has adopted or intends to adopt special aid measures for shipyards located in Objective 1 maritime regions in the outlying parts of the Union?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 132. (2) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The first paragraph of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 on establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding makes it clear that the only aids to shipbuilding that may be considered compatible with the common market are those complying with the Regulation. No other types of aid are allowed.

As regards special aid measures for shipyards based in objective 1 maritime regions, regional considerations are taken into account as regards certain categories of aid covered by the Regulation. In the case of aids for research and development and aids for environmental protection, there is the possibility of top-ups above the normally applicable ceiling for yards in disadvantaged regions. In addition, the Regulation also allows investment aids for upgrading or modernising existing yards in regions eligible for regional aids under Article 87.3 (ex Article 92)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty.

(2001/C 72 E/217) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2025/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Budgetary contributions of Member States

Can the Commission indicate the net contributions or receipts of each of the Member States for the last financial year?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The latest year for which data on budgetary balances are available is 1998.

The estimates for 1999 will be reported in tandem with the 1999 Report on the Allocation of EU Expenditure, which is currently being prepared. As in any other year, the report will probably be available at the beginning of autumn. This report is a public document and will also be available on the Commission Internet page.

Data on budgetary data related to previous years (in particular 1992-1998) can be found in the 1998 allocated expenditure report entitled ‘Allocation of 1998 EU operating expenditure by Member State’. This report is available at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/pdf/agenda2000/statdepenses98.pdf. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/171

Despite the availability of estimates of budgetary balances by Member State, it is to be noted that there exists no optimal way to measure net contributions. The Commission has also consistently argued against the use of such measures when intended to evaluate the budgetary benefits and costs of Union membership. These issues are extensively discussed in the Commission report on the operation of the own resources system, of October 1998, and in particular in Annex 3. This report is available at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/fr/agenda2000/a2000rp.htm.

(2001/C 72 E/218) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2027/00 by Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Position of workers, their legal security and work protection in paedophile cases

A number of difficult paedophile incidents have recently been uncovered in several European Union Member States among persons working with children. These incidents have made the working environment considerably more difficult. Workers who have attempted to help children and demand investigations have often come up against a powerful reaction, for example in the course of court and complaints procedures. In the worst instance a worker was sacked and even had to bear liability for legal costs.

What measures is the Commission taking or does it propose to take at European level to protect the position and legal certainty of workers in cases where a worker has taken measures to protect children and investigate paedophile incidents at his or her place of work?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.

(2001/C 72 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2031/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Vietnam: meeting between Mr Prodi and Mr Lê Kha Phiêu

Despite the fact that Vietnam has shown not the slightest signs of any improvement in its current regime and there have, on the contrary, been further arrests of political and religious figures, the Vietnamese press agency has announced that the President of the Commission decided to hold a meeting on Saturday, 27 May with Mr Lê Kha Phiêu, Secretary-General of the Vietnamese Communist Party, in other words the politician who symbolises most obviously and most directly the anti-democratic face of Vietnam.

Can this decision by the President of the Commission be interpreted as marking the beginning of a shift away from the highly critical stance hitherto adopted by the European Union towards Vietnam and the abandonment of specific demands by the European institutions, in particular the European Parliament, that the Vietnamese authorities carry out political, economic and human rights reforms? If this is not the case, what guarantees did the Commission receive from the Secretary-General of the Vietnamese Communist Party concerning the willingness of the Vietnamese authorities to carry out rapidly the reforms necessary reforms to establish democracy and the rule of law in Vietnam? C 72 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

The Commission refers to its reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-1517/00 and confirms that the meeting between the President of the Commission and the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Vietnam on 27 May 2000 did not represent any deviation from the policy of the Union in relation to Vietnam.

(2001/C 72 E/220) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2035/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: International air links from Galicia

Although there are three airports in Galicia, Santiago de Compostela, Vigo and Corunha, this European region of almost 3 million inhabitants has no direct international links with any city other than London. To reach the rest of Europe and the world, Galicians have to travel via Madrid, Barcelona or Bilbau. International links from London are restricted by the fact that there is only one flight a day. It takes 5 hours to get from Santiago airport to Brussels, and the journey to Strasbourg, which requires two changes of plane, takes seven. In reply to my earlier question on the decentralisation of air communications (E-0110/00) (1), the Commission indicated that when third country companies wish to use Member States as a base for operating international flights, the Member States allow them to do so only on condition that they use the hub airports, thus worsening the already appalling congestion at these airports and prejudicing decentralisation. The idea is apparently to defend the interests of the flag-carrying companies of each Member State, in opposition to the economic and social interests of their citizens, and ignoring the idea and concept of a ‘single European sky’ promoted by the Commission.

What problems and economic, legal or technical conditions need to be dealt with in order for Galicia to have direct air links with the major European cities, or alternatively, the requisite air links with London, an airport close at hand linked with the entire world, or Brussels, thus avoiding the tiresome necessity of changing planes in Madrid, Barcelona, or Bilbau, airports which in turn offer less advantageous connections for certain international flights, particularly with European cities like Strasbourg? Are objectives like this included in the ‘single European sky’ scheme, given that they undoubtedly affect many European cities and regions?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 85.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Since the entry into force on 1 January 1993 of the three Regulations making up the ‘third air package’ (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers (1)) and liberalising the Community civil aviation market, Community air carriers are entirely free to propose whatever services they wish between Community airports open to commercial operations. Consequently, there is no longer any regulatory or technical barrier to Galicia enjoying the kind of air service desired by the Honourable Member. The policy of liberalisation has in fact resulted in an overall increase in the number of lines being operated within the Community. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/173

Clearly, however, in a liberalised market the airlines’ choices will be dictated by the requirements of profitability. Nonetheless, Member States have the option of imposing public service obligations on certain links.

The aim of the ‘Single European Sky’ scheme is to unify the various air traffic control systems of the Member States in order inter alia to improve control capacity and at the same time reduce the number of delays currently occurring in airports.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2001/C 72 E/221) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2036/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Unemployment in Galicia

The latest statistics indicate that 15,80 % of the working population in Galicia is unemployed, double that of the Navarrese Autonomous Community, which is the lowest in Spain, and of the majority of European countries. Does the Community support framework for Spain make provision for effective specific action to solve this major problem facing Galicia, taking account of its Objective No 1 status?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

Having presented the regional development plan for Objective 1 regions in Spain, and with a view to establishing the Community Support Framework (CSF) for the period 2000-2006, the Commission is currently negotiating the strategic guidelines and objectives of this CSF with the Spanish authorities.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it is taking account in these negotiations of the labour market situation in Spain’s Objective 1 regions, particularly the lack of qualifications among human resources and rates of employment and unemployment.

The objectives of the Community Support Framework for Spain’s Objective 1 regions in the period 2000- 2006 will include growth in employment, provision of skills for the workforce and reduction of the unemployment rate.

These objectives will take account of the employment pillars and guidelines implemented by the national action plans and of the priority areas defined by Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund, the main financial support instrument for the European Employment Strategy (1).

The Commission will forward the Community Support Framework to Parliament as soon as it has been adopted.

(1) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999. C 72 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/222) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2061/00 by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Visa requirements in respect of Romania and Bulgaria

Since the beginning of 2000, the Commission has been working on plans to end visa requirements in respect of Bulgaria and Romania. Such a move would be an important step towards helping the two countries develop in a more positive way and in particular indicate that the European Union does not intend to continue to discriminate against European countries that are not Member States.

What has been the upshot of the Commission’s proposal to the Member States that visa requirements in respect of Bulgaria and Romania be abolished? Will the Commission continue its efforts to end discrimination against these two countries?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

On 26 January the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council 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 (1). This proposal includes Bulgaria and Romania in the list of countries whose nationals are exempt from the visa requirement.

The Commission proposal has been sent to the Council and to the European Parliament for examination in accordance with the relevant procedures.

(1) COM(2000) 27 final.

(2001/C 72 E/223) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2064/00 by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Role of consultancy firms and project monitoring in the implementation of the LIFE Nature programme

According to the standard application form for LIFE Nature projects, the Commission is assisted by external consultancy groups in monitoring projects and ascertaining the formal and administrative correctness of proposals. The consultancy firms cannot provide assistance in devising a project or be involved in the institutional or financial preparation of a projects and must provide guarantees of transparency and impartiality in order to be able to carry out their work properly.,

Can the Commission specify:

what requirements consultancy firms must meet in order to be declared suitable to draw up a contract for implementing the LIFE Nature programme;

what role a consultancy firm must play in compliance with the terms of the contract;

whether it is the task of the consultancy firm to express opinions on the strategies and aims of the measures carried out as part of the projects;

what costs should be considered justified for the purposes of such contracts?

Can the Commission also say whether those in charge of a consultancy firm may have contacts with or hold strategic positions in companies or bodies benefiting under LIFE Nature projects? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/175

Finally, can the Commission say what steps will be taken to ensure compliance with the principles of equity and transparency vis-à-vis all those taking part in the LIFE Nature programme?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The external LIFE-Nature groups appointed to assist the Commission are selected on the basis of a public invitation to tender. The qualifications required concern, amongst other things, professional experience, scientific competence, the composition of the group and its linguistic knowledge, and its independence in relation to proposers.

According to the contract, the consultant assists the Commission in its contacts with the proposers and the administrations during the phase of presentation of the requests for financial support. It provides, if necessary, complementary technical and scientific information useful for the evaluation of the projects presented. It follows the implementation of each project (analysis of the measures implemented, technical advice on each activity report produced by the beneficiary, a biannual detailed follow-up, and at the end of each project an assessment of the results of the project in comparison with the initial objectives). The consultant also provides a permanent interface between the Commission, the beneficiaries, the national administrations and the local communities and advises the beneficiaries on the preparation of the documents to submit to the Commission. Finally it encourages the exchange of experience between projects.

The external consultants deliver their opinions to the Commission, which then has to decide what attitude to take with regard to the projects concerned (e.g. making payments, requesting additional information or adjusting project aims). Justified outgoings of the external groups are chiefly staff costs and mission expenses.

The external groups and their staff are required to maintain strict independence vis-à-vis LIFE-Nature beneficiaries. They may neither accept any payment from them nor hold a position of influence on their management boards, even in a voluntary capacity.

The Commission does its best to ensure equal treatment for LIFE-Nature project proposers, as far as the available human resources allow. For example, the LIFE-nature information and training sessions held in the Member States are open to all, the Commission and the external groups do not respond to any request for information on the eligibility or the quality of a proposal under consideration and they do not accept any invitation to the site of a project before the Commission has taken its co-financing decision.

(2001/C 72 E/224) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2065/00 by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Recognition of qualifications

The recognition of qualifications in the EU by the Member States is an issue of great importance which has a direct impact on citizens and restricts their right to freedom of movement and establishment for purposes of work.

Can the Commission therefore say:

whether it is possible to devise a Commission initiative to establish a ‘European professional qualifying examination’ based on a single curriculum, with examination subjects laid down for each profession with the assistance of all the Member States, to be held regularly and simultaneously in all the countries, for the purposes of defining a ‘legal status for European professionals’ accepted throughout the Union?

The qualification could be issued without restriction or could be subject to a periodically determined set number of successful candidates, if it is considered necessary to make it subject to the demand on the labour market, on the basis of an analysis. C 72 E/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

First, the Commission would refer the honourable Member to the Commission’s answers to Written Questions E-2378/94 by Ms Pack (1) and E-3037/95 by Mr Schnellhardt (2).

The Commission also believes that the question of a European examination, and hence the harmonisation of training, should be considered in the light of Articles 149 and 150 of the EC Treaty (ex Articles 126 and 127), where reference is made specifically to the exclusion of any possibility of harmonising these systems.

In the absence of Community provisions governing the content and structure of teaching in the Member States, the host Member State may require migrants to provide proof of a certain level of knowledge in relation to the requirements laid down in its legislation for admission to a vocational examination. However, in the procedures for enrolling persons with diplomas obtained in other Member States for vocational examinations, Member States must refrain from any direct or indirect discrimination based on nationality, in accordance with Articles 12, 149 and 150 of the EC Treaty (ex Articles 6, 126 and 127).

(1) OJ C 152, 19.6.1995. (2) OJ C 91, 27.3.1996.

(2001/C 72 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2067/00 by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Subject: Excessive certification requirements thwart crockery imports into Turkey

Since July 1999 Turkey has been demanding presentation of a Turkish certificate for crockery imports. As part of the goods checking process, samples are taken from each shipment, which are not returned, and charges are demanded. This amounts to an import restriction and de facto imposition of an ‘import levy’ of around 20 % of the value of the goods.

1. Is the Commission aware of this procedure by the Turkish authorities for imports of household and hotel crockery?

2. Does the Commission take the view that the Turkish import regulation adversely affects the Association Agreement between the EU and Turkey?

3. How does the Commission propose to deal with this procedure?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The problem referred to by the Honourable Member has been brought to the Commission’s attention by representatives of the private sector.

The Commission considers that these measures represent a barrier to trade and run counter to Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union (1).

The Commission therefore contacted the Turkish authorities in January of this year in order to settle this problem within the Joint Committee on Customs Union.

(1) OJ L 35, 13.2.1996. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/177

(2001/C 72 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2104/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Lobby groups

On Tuesday, 6 June 2000, a number of lobbying organisations were camped out on the third floor of the European Parliament building in Brussels. Amongst their number were representatives of the Young European Federalists, European Movement, and Union of European Federalists.

Does the Commission feel that it is justifiable for such bodies to be in receipt of EU funding in order to lobby the EU legislature in the pursuit of a political objection? Is not this a peculiar approach to the concept of democracy?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The three organisations mentioned by the Honourable Member have been given grants two at the specific request of the Budgetary Authority through the Remarks to budget line A-3021 the first as an ‘international non-governmental youth organisation’ under budget line A-3029 and the two others as ‘organisations advancing the idea of Europe’ under A-3021. The Commission has no objection to organisations in receipt of Community grants engaging in legitimate campaigning activity in pursuit of their registered objectives.

(2001/C 72 E/227) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2109/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Item A-3026

€ 350 000 has been allocated to ‘Committees of European Experts’ under Item A-3026.

Who are these experts, what have they been commissioned to do, and when will their work be completed and published?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The three committees of European experts (think-tanks) receiving a grant under this line Trans-European Policy Studies Association, Centre for European Political Studies, and European Policy Centre have been chosen by the budgetary authority (see remarks to the budget line) and carry out research into European integration on their own initiative. Each year these organisations submit a report on their activities to the Commission. C 72 E/178 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/228) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2114/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Impact of State aid to Spanish electricity companies: real competition on the generation market

In its report on the Unión Fenosa-Hidrocantábrico merger the Spanish Competition Court maintains that, because it allows CTCs (costs of transition to competition) to be securitised by being transferred to third parties, the CTC system adopted by Spain removes the disincentive that presently serves to ensure that the wholesale market price does not rise above a given level.

Does the Commission believe that securitisation of CTCs, which amounts to de facto recognition of a fixed volume of CTCs regardless of the effects of market variables over time, rules out the possibility of controlling wholesale market prices?

Given that, as the Spanish competition authority acknowledges, there is no real competition on the Spanish electricity generation market, does the Commission not consider that securitisation of CTCs is simply tantamount to abandonment of the only means of controlling the market power that companies wield over the wholesale electricity market price?

Does it not believe that securitisation of CTCs as proposed under the Spanish system will, to all practical intents and purposes, prevent genuine competition from being introduced on to the market?

What does the Commission think about the fact that, according to the findings of the Spanish Competition Court, the wholesale market price increased by 20 % in the first four months of the year?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The three first questions that the Honourable Member asks concern ‘securitisation’ or the possibility of transferring to third parties the right to receive aid to cover the costs of transition to competition (CTC).

This possibility is one of the set of measures provided for in the Spanish law on the electricity sector. These measures are currently being examined by the Commission in the light of the EC Treaty provisions on State aid. It would be premature to comment on any of these measures before the Commission adopts a decision on this matter.

As to the Honourable Member’s fourth question, the Commission cannot state, on the basis of the information at its disposal, that the prices on the Spanish electricity market are determined exclusively by the existence of CTCs or, even less, by their possible securitisation, which is not yet a reality.

(2001/C 72 E/229) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2115/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Quantification of the costs of transition to competition (CTCs) for the Spanish electricity industry in the procedure initiated by the Commission

On 28 September 1998 the Spanish Electricity Commission, now incorporated into the National Energy Commission, drew up a public report in which it advised the Spanish Government not to adopt the system of securitising CTCs, but that recommendation has not been heeded. In its report the Spanish regulatory body stated that the CTCs for the electricity companies would total no more than Ptas 480 000 million, 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/179

taking into account the variable costs and useful life of generation assets, the demand trend, and the types of discount. However, the Spanish Government is seeking to grant the electricity companies the right to securitise Ptas 1 billion (in other words they would receive that amount at all once).

Will the Commission take account of the informed opinion of the Spanish regulatory body as regards the figure to be put on the CTCs?

Does the Commission not consider that the Spanish regulatory body is better placed than the Commission itself to quantify the CTCs?

Given that, in his answer of 28 March 2000 to Written Question E-0492/00 (1), Mr Monti confirmed that neither the Commission nor the independent consultant whom the Commission had appointed was recalculating the Spanish CTCs, would it not be advisable, if only to enforce Article 87 of the Treaty with circumspection, for the Commission to check the calculation made by an independent body which, moreover, happens to be the Spanish market regulator?

Will the Commission accept the Ptas 1 billion in State operating aid without question and without even obtaining the opinion of those who have carried out an impartial examination and, on that basis, put a substantially lower figure on the amount required?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 174.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

When assessing a state aid case, the Commission takes account of all the information at its disposal, in addition to that provided by the national authorities, but is not bound by any of it.

The Commission feels that the role of the Comisión Nacional del Sistema Eléctrico (CNSE), now part of the Comisión Nacional de la Energía (CNE), is different from that of the Commission. The Commission’s role is to assess the compatibility of the measures in question with the common market, in application of Articles 87 and 88 (formerly Articles 92 and 93) of the EC Treaty. The CNSE, on the other hand, is competent to act in particular as a consultative body for the Spanish authorities on electricity matters and, to this end, it takes part in the legislative process by means of proposals or opinions. The Honourable Member will note that, in accordance with Section 8 of Act 54/1997 on electricity, the opinions of the CNSE regarding competition are not binding on the national competition authorities or, of course, a fortiori, on the Commission.

Although the Commission is aware of the existence of the report to which the Honourable Member refers, it preferred, in view of the task conferred upon it by the EC Treaty, to decide for itself on the analyses and studies needed for its own assessment.

It is not customary for the Commission to formally question third parties such as the CNSE as part of the preparation of a state aid case.

(2001/C 72 E/230) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2119/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Future of the Community twinning programme

In an interview published on page 17 the of the Italian daily newspaper ‘La Repubblica’ on 20 March this year Neil Kinnock, Vice-President of the Commission, said in reply to the journalist’s question concerning the future of the Europe twinning programme ‘We deal with the twinning of towns. It is a task which we have accepted with pleasure and our officials have always carried it out very well. But the fact that we are short of staff means that we must ask ourselves whether twinning constitutes a central task for the Commission’. C 72 E/180 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Since town-twinning is an important instrument for raising awareness and involving the public in the European enterprise, can the Commission say more about its attitude to twinning?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1366/00 by Mrs Muscardini (1).

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 178.

(2001/C 72 E/231) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2135/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Greece’s failure to observe the CITES regulation

In a leaflet published by the RSPCA, a British organisation, Greece is accused of not complying with the regulation governing the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (No 338/ 97 CITES (1)). The RSPCA accuses Greece of failing to provide for an advisory committee covering this area, protective limits, fines for violations or customs checks. Its investigations on the Greek market have revealed that a large number of products derived from protected species (chiefly fur and ivory) are being freely traded without the relevant permits or certificates.

Can the Commission confirm or deny the information given by the above-mentioned organisation? In the event that the information is valid: (1) which parts of the arrangements as a whole does it consider to be the most deficient and (2) what steps does it intend to take to put a stop to this illegal trade in Greece?

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2000)

The Commission has been informed by the Greek authorities of the introduction of the national legislation (Law 2637/1998, accompanied by Ministerial Decisions where necessary) required to supplement the Community regulations on trade in wildlife.

In accordance with the terms of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein and the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES), a scientific committee has been set up. Furthermore penalties and administrative sanctions for infringements of the provisions of the Community regulations on trade in wildlife have been put in place, protective limits have been set and the number of ports of entry and exit have been reduced.

Of course, illegal trade remains a factor of concern and should be pursued vigorously. The Commission intends to follow this matter up in the framework of the activities of the enforcement working group established by Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/181

(2001/C 72 E/232) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2136/00 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Ban on horse riding on designated roads

Can the Commission confirm that it has no intention of introducing legislation leading to a ban on horse riding on designated roads within the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission can confirm that it currently has no intention to introduce legislation that would seek to ban horse riding on designated roads within the Union.

(2001/C 72 E/233) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2137/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Stage reached in the infringement proceedings opened against Spain for incorrect transposal of the directive on public works contracts

In early March the Commission announced its intention to allow the Spanish authorities two months in which to make good the irregularities that had led to the opening of infringement proceedings on the grounds of incorrect transposal of Directive 93/37/EC (1) on public works contracts. The proceedings were opened in connection with the procedure used to select the undertaking responsible for building a new prison in Segovia.

However, this move in fact calls into question the system used in Spain for the award of contracts to businesses which receive public funding a system which is used by many of the governments of the autonomous communities.

Given that the deadline set for the Spanish authorities has now expired and that no trace of any proceedings is to be found in the list of Spanish cases pending before the Court of Justice (as at 18 May 2000), can the Commission state whether it has actually referred the case to the Court and, if it has, what stage has been reached in the proceedings?

Furthermore, have the Spanish authorities submitted any further arguments, and, if so, what are those arguments?

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission decided on 22 December 1999 to refer the matter concerning Spain to the Court of Justice, as part of infringement proceedings in connection with a call for tenders announced by the Sociedad Estatal de Infraestructuras y Equipamientos Penitenciarios (Siepsa) to carry out works at the experimental training prison in Segovia.

The call for tenders, which was published in the national press but not in the Official Journal, was launched in violation of the provisions of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts. The Spanish authorities dispute the C 72 E/182 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

application of this directive to Siepsa on the grounds that it is a public commercial company governed by private law. The fact remains that Siepsa is a contracting authority within the meaning of the Directive, inasmuch as it fulfils the conditions of Article 1 thereof, in particular the condition that it has been established for the purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character.

The Commission took the decision to refer the matter to the Court of Justice after Spain had replied on 22 November 1999 to the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission on 25 August 1999, since the arguments put forward in the reply did not justify a change of opinion on the part of the Commission.

The application was recently submitted to the Court of Justice.

(2001/C 72 E/234) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2146/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Milk for confectionery

Are there any restrictions in operation within the Community on the use of EU milk for confectionery?

What is the legal situation of any company attempting to specify to producers the country/countries within the EU from which such milk must originate before they will purchase the confectionery?

Answer by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The use in confectionery of milk produced within the Community is not subject to any restrictions in the Community.

In general, Community law does not prevent a company purchasing milk-based confectionery from specifying to producers the Member State(s) from which the milk used must originate.

Furthermore, in case of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, it may be provided in the specifications of the protected name that the milk must originate from a given geographical region.

(2001/C 72 E/235) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2153/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Ethics and European law

Is the Commission aware that the French Ethics Committee (Comité Consultatif National D’Ethique) has urged the French National Assembly not to translate into French law the recent directive on the patentability of the human genome?

Can a Member State suspend implementation of any European legislation on moral grounds? What steps will the Commission take to ensure that European law is not compromised in this way? Will it consider establishing its own Ethics Committee/Ethics Unit so that these important issues are not ‘nationalised’ but treated at Pan-European level? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/183

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission is aware of the Opinion No 64 of the French ethical committee (comité consultatif national d’éthique) of June 8th 2000, concerning Directive 98/44/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998, on the protection of biotechnological inventions (1).

Agreement on this Directive was achieved after discussions within the Parliament and the Council where much consideration was given to the ethical aspects surrounding biotechnological inventions. The Directive seeks both to address these ethical considerations and to provide the necessary incentives to encourage research and development in the area of biotechnology.

Under Article 15(1) of the Directive, Member States are required to comply with the Directive not later than 30 July 2000. Any Member State challenge of the validity of the Directive before the Court of justice would not release it from its obligation to transpose the Directive into national law by the specified deadline. The Commission, in its role as the guardian of the treaties, is required to ensure that Community legislation is applied correctly by the Member States.

The European group on ethics (EGE) in science and new technologies was set up by the Commission in 1992 in order to advise the European institutions on ethical issues. The EGE has an explicit mandate under the Article 7 of the Directive to evaluate the ethical aspects of biotechnology.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.

(2001/C 72 E/236) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2159/00 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(22 June 2000)

Subject: Application for student loans

This question is tabled in response to an enquiry from my constituents, Mr and Mrs Grief, formerly of Kings Lynn, Norfolk, who now reside in Spain, regarding their two sons Anthony and Jonathan (aged 19 years).

Anthony and Jonathan resided in Norfolk from 3 November 1981 to 13 August 1990 and were then taken to Spain by their parents until 3 September 1998, when they returned to live with other family members in Kings Lynn. They have lived at that address ever since. They have therefore spent eight years in Spain with their parents. Is there any element of EU law of which the European Commission is aware that could determine whether or not these students should or should not be able to qualify for a UK student loan to undertake higher education?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

At this stage of development of Community law, Member States are competent to establish the modalities of student support (grants, student loans or any other form of financial help). They must however respect the principle of equality of treatment which means that the university or college where a citizen of the Union wishes to study must accept them under the same conditions as nationals. Therefore, if a grant is paid to nationals of the Member State where a citizen of another Member State wishes to study to cover course fees (tuition fees), he or she must be able to receive it. However, the principle of equality of treatment as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of justice does not apply to support for maintenance and in the case of the United Kingdom to grants, student loans and supplementary grants, intended to help students pay their daily living expenses, unless the student is, at the same time, a migrant worker or a C 72 E/184 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

family member of a migrant worker. It should be recalled that, as Community law now stands, migrant workers and their family members have wider rights in the host Member State, notably as regards social advantages, than other Union students.

However, the Honourable Member has not provided enough information for the Commission to establish whether Mr and Mrs Grief or their children have rights under Community law as migrant workers.

(2001/C 72 E/237) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: European social statute for housewives

The diversity of regulations relating to housewives in the various Member States fuels the argument that, in one way or another, the role of housewives will have to be regulated if the legitimate aspirations of what constitutes an important grouping within the Community are to be satisfied.

In France there exists a social statute for housewives; in Italy the government has set up a domestic- accident insurance scheme; in Spain, preferential treatment for savings intended to increase the future pensions of housewives is under discussion and in a non-Community country (Switzerland), housewives receive childcare payments and a retirement pension.

Does the Commission not think that, with a view to uniformly regulating the current situation of housewives in the various Member States, a European social statute for housewives should be proposed, incorporating all the aspects which should be regulated in order to consolidate the social dimension of housewives within the European economic environment?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The Honourable Member refers, in his question, to the present position of housewives in the Member States. He asks whether a European social statute for housewives should be proposed with a view to uniformally regulating the current situation, which varies considerably from one Member State to another.

While the Commission recognises the important contribution housewives make to their families and society in general, the powers of the European Union are very limited in the field of family law.

Where the status of housewives is concerned, I would point out that, in 1987, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive (1) ‘completing the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in statutory social security schemes’. It provided for individual entitlement to social security, as an alternative to derived rights, and also covered housewives.

This proposal was not adopted by the Council in the end, despite the favourable opinions of the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.

The Commission intends to look into this question, in connection with the new strategy for modernising and improving social security in Europe.

(1) OJ C 309, 19.11.1987. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/185

(2001/C 72 E/238) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2181/00 by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Authority responsible for checking recreational craft bearing CE marking

1. If a recreational craft has been built in one Member State, has been granted CE marking by an authorised body in another Member State, and is the subject of a complaint from a national of a third Member State, in that State, concerning serious structural defects in the craft, can the Commission say which authority is responsible in such circumstances and can it explain the principles which apply in that respect?

2. The Swedish maritime authorities interpret Article 7(1) of Directive 94/25/EC (1) to mean that the authorities are required to carry out checks on products only before they are placed on the market or in connection with their being placed on the market. Can the Commission confirm that this is the correct interpretation of the directive? If so, does CE marking, under those circumstances, provide consumers with the protection intended under Directive 94/25/EC?

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 15.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

1. In the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the person responsible for conformity of the product to the relevant legislation is the manufacturer or his authorised representative in the Member State where the craft was placed on the market for the first time.

The principles that apply in a buyer/seller dispute about the purchase of an allegedly defective product are those pertaining to general product liability, in accordance with normal civil law procedures provided for under the contract.

In addition, if the ‘serious structural defects’ mentioned by the Honourable Member are such that the craft does not meet the safety requirements provided by Directive 94/25/EC (1) of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft1, the national authority foreseen in the legislation of the Member State where the product has been placed on the market for the first time may raise a safeguard clause according to Article 7 of the Recreational craft Directive.

2. As to the second question of the Honourable Member on the interpretation of Article 7(1) of the Recreational craft Directive, the Commission confirms that the role of national market surveillance authorities, as defined in the New Approach Directives (including Directive 94/25/EC), is to carry out checks once the product has been placed on the market, but before being put into service, i.e. only at the distribution chain. Unfortunately, the word ‘in connection with’ used by the Honourable Member is not precise enough to allow the Commission to decide whether or not the presented interpretation is correct.

In any case, as far as the CE marking is concerned, it is affixed by the manufacturer and symbolises the conformity of the product with the requirements imposed on the manufacturer by the Recreational craft Directive, based on Article 95 (ex Article 100a) of the EC Treaty, which provides for a high level of consumer protection.

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 15. C 72 E/186 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/239) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2212/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Funding of information booklets

Last September, ILGA Europe (the European branch of the International Lesbian and Gay Association) published a booklet entitled: ‘After Amsterdam: sexual orientation and the European Union’, which attracted funding from the Commission.

The preface states that the guide was produced as part of a project supported by the Commission (DG X) under the Information Programme for the European Citizen (Prince).

In view of the foregoing, would the Commission state:

1. What are the objectives and implementing procedures of the Prince programme?

2. In what circumstances would it be be deemed permissible for the Commission to provide a private organisation with funds to publish information material aimed at European citizens?

3. Whether the subject matter of the publication in question can be regarded as falling within the scope of public information for the European citizen on the funding of Community institutions?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The aim of the Prince programme (Information Programme for the European Citizen) is to provide European citizens with information on EU-related issues which are considered to be a priority. The choice of priority areas is decided, under the budgetary procedure, on the basis of the recommendations of the interinstitutional consultative working party, which brings Parliament and the Commission together at the highest level.

Implementation of the Prince programme is based on the principle of partnership either with the government authorities in the Member States if they are interested (agreement) or with organised civil society on the basis of a call for proposals for information projects which are then cofinanced. By organised civil society we mean the voluntary sector, non-governmental organisations, federations, trade unions, etc.

In the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) Europe, like all associations which have a recognised legal status, is eligible for assistance provided the project presented by this association is accepted by the project selection panel.

All Europeans have the right of access to information to allow them to form opinions on all issues. This right to information also applies to the booklet entitled ‘After Amsterdam: sexual orientation and the European Union’.

(2001/C 72 E/240) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2214/00 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(28 June 2000)

Subject: Exclusion of EU-based Japanese car companies

Why are EU-based Japanese car companies excluded from Commission working parties involved in Climate Change and Auto Oil II? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/187

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Auto-Oil II programme is now finished. The reports are being finalised, and the Commission intends to adopt in September 2000 a communication presenting the outcome of the programme.

Auto-Oil II was characterised by the involvement of a wide range of parties. Automobile manufacturers were represented in particular by the European association ACEA. The Japanese car manufacturers were not directly involved, and did not express a pressing desire to be involved. They should nevertheless be involved in future similar programmes, not least in view of their increased presence as vehicle manufacturers in Europe.

An important initiative was recently launched in the context of climate change: the European climate change programme (ECCP). This follows up the Commission communication on policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (1). It will be responsible for developing a series of options in the field of energy, transport and industry. A specific ECCP transport working group has been established. Again Japanese car manufacturers did not show any wish to participate directly in the initiative. Japanese car manufactures have, however, along with their European and Korean counterparts, committed themselves to quantitative targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cars, and are involved in the monitoring of these commitments and all related issues. Furthermore, Japanese manufacturers are fully involved in the motor vehicle working group and motor vehicle emissions group which advise the Commission on vehicle-related regulatory questions.

(1) COM(2000) 88 final.

(2001/C 72 E/241) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2224/00 by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Recognition of the denturologist’s (or denturist’s) profession

Denturology, a medical profession which is recognised in several European countries (Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain), consists in producing and fitting full or partial removable dentures and providing the full range of related dental services. In countries where it is recognised, denturology is a fully-fledged profession, distinct from dental surgery and stomatology.

The denturologist’s (or denturist’s) profession is not recognised in France. This has given rise to disparities not only on the dental services market but also in terms of recognition of occupations and equivalence of qualifications at European level.

Is the Commission aware of such disparities in the European Union?

Does it intend to ensure that all Member States recognise the denturologist’s profession and the relevant qualifications?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission is aware that denturology is not a recognised profession in all the Member States. The fact that this situation may lead to certain disparities on the dental services market and in terms of recognition of qualifications does not affect the fact that giving official status to that profession and drawing up regulations governing it are matters for which the Member States are competent. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-2564/99 by Mr B. Staes (1), on the same profession. C 72 E/188 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

As regards possible Community-level harmonisation of the profession through specific directives coordi- nating training and mutual recognition of diplomas, the Commission, in accordance with the approach set out in the directives on a general system for the recognition of diplomas (89/48/EEC (2) and 92/51/EEC (3)), will not consider proposing harmonisation measures that are specific to a given profession unless the circumstances are entirely exceptional and only if the following conditions are met: first, the proposal for a directive in question would need to substantially improve the scope for free movement by the practitioners concerned, Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC having proved inadequate to ensure recognition of diplomas and freedom of establishment for these persons, and second, the underlying principle and the main components of the proposed harmonisation measures would have to win an adequate consensus among those working in this field in all the Member States and between the Member States themselves.

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000. (2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. (3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2001/C 72 E/242) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2242/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) and Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 July 2000)

Subject: Member States’ legislation on the loan of museum exhibits

Is the Commission aware that it is particularly difficult for museums in some Member States to organise joint exhibitions because Member States have very restrictive legislation on the loan of exhibits?

For example, the Friesian Museum in Leeuwarden needed two years ago to organise its ‘Koningin van de Noordzee’ (Queen of the North Sea) exhibition because of this restrictive legislation.

Is the Commission prepared to investigate whether the legislation in question could be harmonised in order to facilitate the loan of exhibits and the holding of joint exhibitions within the Union?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The Commission would like to point out to the honourable Member that transfers of works of art between museums located in the Member States may be hampered by the application of national laws designed to protect national treasures. Indeed, in accordance with Article 30 (ex Article 36) of the EC Treaty, prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit are allowed if justified on grounds of the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value, provided such measures are proportionate to the stated objective. The Commission would emphasise that since 1 January 1993 these measures cannot involve any check at the internal borders of the Community. It is for this reason that the Community adopted Council Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods (1) and Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (2).

The Commission informs the honourable Member that, in connection with the establishment and operation of the internal market, it is ready to accord special attention to the difficulties of transfers between museums, although it has not yet begun to consider possible harmonisation of laws relating to loans of works between museums.

The Commission would also like to point out that the organisation of joint exhibitions by museums can be supported by Community actions in the cultural field. However, in accordance with Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty, such actions cannot include any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 395, 31.12.1992. (2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/189

(2001/C 72 E/243) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2249/00 by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Subject: Draft Common Position on the Copyright (COM(97) 628)

The draft Common Position on the Copyright Directive (COM(97) 628 (1) indicates a Commission and Council Declaration on Recital 23 which is technology specific, referring only to ‘proxy caching’.

By ‘proxy caching’ does the Commission mean network caching in general, or are the Commission and the Council deliberately excluding all other forms of caching from the scope of the Declaration?

If it is the intention of the Declaration to refer to network caching in general, can the Commission ensure that the Common Position text reflects this?

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998, p. 6.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

In line with the amended proposal for a directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, the draft common position, in its article 5(1), provides an obligatory exception for certain acts of temporary reproduction which are considered technical copies (1).

As in the Commission’s amended proposal for this directive, there are several conditions to be fulfilled before the exemption applies. According to article 5(1), those acts of reproduction are exempted which are transient or incidental, forming an essential part of a technological process carried out for the sole purpose of enabling either an efficient transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or a lawful use of a work or other subject matter to be made. Furthermore, the acts of reproduction concerned must have no separate economic value on their own. To the extent that they meet these conditions, this exception also covers acts of copying which enable browsing as well as acts of caching to take place, including those which enable transmission systems to function efficiently. These ‘cache copies’ may take place in the network but the exception may include other forms of caching as well.

As for the treatment of copies arising in the context of browsing and caching, the proposed recital 23 stresses that the exception under article 5(1) only applies to the extent that the intermediary does not modify the information and does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognised by industry, to obtain data on the use of the information. These conditions are strongly inspired by section 4 of the Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market (2) on the liability of intermediaries. It is in this context that the Council and the Commission intend to make a declaration confirming that this latter wording (‘provided that the intermediary does not modify the information … to obtain data on the use of the information’) does not exclude proxy caching by an intermediary from being exempted under article 5(1), if such caching meets the conditions set out in this provision. The sole reference to ‘proxy caching’ as such does not imply, however, that any other acts of caching may not be covered by article 5(1).

(1) OJ C 180, 25.6.1999. (2) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000. C 72 E/190 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/244) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2262/00 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Community transport policy: goods in circulation in the European Union under the TIR international road transport scheme

On 19 June 2000 the trade in illegal immigrants to the European Union cost the lives of 58 people who were discovered dead in the trailer of a lorry in the port of Dover. The lorry in question was operating under the TIR international road transport scheme. Vehicles operating under this scheme bear locks with customs seals, with which it is illegal to tamper. Once the seals are put on the cargo, only customs officers are authorised to carry out checks, but these checks must be applied to the whole load. This procedure has the effect of discouraging checks. As a result, TIR vehicles have become the means of transport preferred by illegal immigration networks, because of the difficulty of checking their loads. Transport operators and drivers themselves are unable to check the goods they load under the TIR arrangements, although they are the ones who bear the consequences of illegal immigration (imprisonment of drivers, confiscation of vehicles, lost goods, etc.). The TIR scheme is coming to seem less and less appropriate in view of the magnitude of the problems affecting international transport operators, whether in the form of illegal immigration, drug trafficking or smuggling.

1. What action at international level could the Commission take rapidly to reinforce controls on goods carried by vehicles operating under the TIR scheme?

2. What ways can the Commission propose of reinforcing customs controls on goods transported under the TIR scheme in transit through the European Union?

3. What proposals can the Commission put forward to help European companies transporting goods under the TIR scheme?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

According to the information received by the Commission, the vehicle in which 58 people were found dead at Dover was not operating under the international carriage of goods by road (TIR) procedure but was engaged in internal Community transport.

Vehicles that do carry goods under the TIR procedure are sealed by customs and the vehicles must be constructed in such a manner that no goods can be removed or introduced without leaving obvious traces of tampering or without breaking the customs seal. The customs authorities of Member States have reported that there is no evidence that the problems of illegal immigration are made worse by these rules. On the contrary, they can be helpful to both immigration authorities and vehicle operators when checking whether vehicles are carrying illegal immigrants.

1. and 2. The problems that illegal immigration are causing for TIR operators have been discussed by the Commission with Member States and at the United Nations’ economic commission for Europe (UN/ECE) working party on customs questions affecting transport which deals with the application of the TIR Convention at international level. There were reports that the action taken to combat illegal immigration had caused difficulties for TIR operators in some cases, but there was no evidence that the TIR rules themselves added to those difficulties. It was agreed that no action was necessary in relation to TIR. That position remains unchanged and the Commission is therefore not at this stage proposing any action at international or Community level to reinforce customs controls of goods carried under the TIR procedure.

3. In the light of the above comments, the Commission is also unable to make any proposals in relation to the TIR procedure to help transport operators. It would, however, advise operators to follow the existing TIR rules regarding sealing. If a seal is found to have been broken, the operator should immediately contact the customs or other competent authorities. If it is considered necessary to break 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/191

seals, it should only be done in the presence of the customs or other authorities except that in an emergency the carrier may take action on his own initiative. The Commission do not consider that it would be helpful to authorise transport operators to routinely break customs seals themselves to check whether a vehicle is carrying illegal immigrants.

The Commission believes that, at this stage, solutions to the problems of illegal immigration by means of road transport are not to be found in the context of TIR. Nevertheless, it will continue to monitor the situation and will propose appropriate measures at Community or international level should they become necessary.

(2001/C 72 E/245) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2285/00 by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission (11 July 2000)

Subject: Admission of a German citizen to employment as a hunting warden in France

The holder of a hunting lease in the Erstein region applied to the Séléstat Erstein sub-prefecture for authorisation to engage a German citizen as a hunting warden. After a lapse of nearly seven months a decision was handed down by the sub-prefecture rejecting the application. It was asserted in justification that the warden’s place of residence, in Germany, was not compatible with the duties to be performed. That place of residence is however only twenty minutes drive from the intended place of work.

The candidate’s qualifications and suitability are not in question.

Does the European Commission share the view that the above refusal of authorisation is incompatible with EU-Treaty rules as they apply to the free movement of persons?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (7 September 2000)

On the basis of the information supplied by the honourable Member, the Commission cannot take a final position on the compatibility with Community rules of the Sélestat sub-prefecture’s decision based on the hunting warden’s place of residence.

The honourable Member is consequently asked to forward for consideration the documents relating to this rejection.

In more general terms, a residence requirement imposed by the national authorities of a Member State within its territory is a restriction both of the freedom of establishment (see judgment of 29 October 1998 in Commission versus Spain, Case C-114/97) and of the freedom of movement of workers (see judgment of 7 May 1998, Clean Car Autoservice, Case C-350/96).

The application of such a requirement is nevertheless acceptable if it is warranted by a genuine and sufficient threat to a basic interest of society, such as public order or security.

(2001/C 72 E/246) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2296/00 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission (11 July 2000)

Subject: Uniform Community patent

Scientific research and technological development are driving forces behind economic growth and the competitiveness of European SMEs and therefore effective and appropriate protection for intellectual property is essential. C 72 E/192 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

The current European patent system is not only complex for the various Member States to administer, but also expensive. Furthermore, the high cost of patents is generally seen as one of the main obstacles to their widespread use in Europe. It should be noted that more than 45 % of the patents issued in Europe are of US origin and 15 % of those issued in the United States are of European origin.

Can the Commission say what measures it proposes to remedy this situation and, if it can, how and when it envisages implementing them?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The Community patent is a priority issue for the Commission. Further to the conclusions of the Heads of State and Government at the Lisbon and Feira European Councils the Commission adopted its proposal for a regulation on the Community patent (1) on 5th July 2000. The proposed regulation aims at creating a Community patent which is affordable and which provides full legal security to industry. The Commission proposal on these aspects is both ambitious and balanced.

The final timetable for the introduction of the Community patent will depend on many factors, not least on the success of the revision of the EC Treaty concerning the establishment of a new, centralised Community jurisdiction to deal with litigation on validity and infringement of Community patents. An integrated jurisdictional system that provides maximum legal certainty for the unitary Community title is one of the most essential requirements for the success of the Community patent.

(1) COM(2000) 412 final.

(2001/C 72 E/247) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2300/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: The Commission’s ‘port package’ and fishing ports

The Commission has announced that it will present a ‘port package’ this year to clarify the rules of competition for port services and State aids. The aim is to ensure that independent firms have proper access to the port services markets.

Will the provisions of this ‘package’ include fishing ports as well as commercial ports and ports handling oil?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission has indeed the intention to publish a ‘Ports Package’ towards the end of this year. It is furthermore its intention to include in this package a draft legal instrument on access to port services.

Although no final decision on the details has yet been taken, it is currently not intended to include fishing ports in this measure but only commercial ports through which international trade is carried out. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/193

(2001/C 72 E/248) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2323/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Inclusion of Schinia (Attica) in the Natura 2000 network

The international environmental organisation WWF has proposed that the Commission should include 2 326 new regions in the list of regions which form part of the Natura 2000 network (Directive 92/43/ EEC) (1) submitted by the Member States. Among these new regions special priority is accorded to the Schinia wetlands in Attica.

Given that this region has been selected as a site for facilities for the 2004 Olympic Games, will the Commission consider the WWF proposal with a view to promoting the objectives of Natura 2000? What scope does the Commission have for intervening in this matter?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2000)

The Schinia wetlands are indeed among the additional sites (the ‘shadow list’) proposed by the Worldwide Fund for Nature for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

When assessing, for each biogeographical region, the national lists transmitted by the Member States, the Commission takes the WWF’s proposals into consideration whenever a type of habitat or a species is deemed to be insufficiently represented.

Regarding the facilities planned at Schinia for the 2004 Olympic Games, a complaint has already been lodged with the Commission, which will be examining the case within that context.

(2001/C 72 E/249) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2325/00 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Migrants Forum

I understand that the Directorate-General for Justice and Home Affairs took over the management of Community subsidies for the European Union Migrants Forum from the Directorate-General for Employ- ment and Social Affairs as of 1 January 2000. In this year’s budget, € 800 000 was earmarked under budget line A-3040 towards the operating cost and the work programme for this organisation.

As vice-chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control I received a copy of an open letter, dated 8 March 2000, signed by a number of interested associations including ATMF (Association des Travailleurs Marocains en France), FTCR (Fédération des Tunisiens pour une Citoyenneté des deux Rives), ATIME (Association des Travailleurs de Turquie), AJM (Asociación de Trabajadores e Inmigrantes Marroquíes en España), ELELE (Maison des Travailleurs de Turquie) and CFAIT (Conseil des Associations Françaises de Turquie), in which allegation of mismanagement are made. I understand that the Commission also received a copy of this letter following the Annual General meeting on 16/17 December 1999.

News has also reached me, through reliable contacts in Denmark, that in addition to the concerns voiced in the open letter, the budget was allegedly re-directed to fund an election campaign in Morocco and to pay for private expenses. C 72 E/194 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Is there any basis for these allegations?

If so, what action has been taken by the Commission, including the recovery of funds?

How does the Commission ensure that this body and others funded under A-3 Community subsidies are effective in meeting their objectives?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The Honourable Member is correct that the Directorate general for Justice and home affairs took over the management of matters relating to the Migrants’ Forum from 1 January 2000 under the direct responsibility of its Director general.

The Commission also received the open letter of 8 March 2000 and has been given a detailed written reply from the executive committee of the Migrants’ Forum covering each point.

The Commission will undertake a full audit of the activities and accounts of the Forum in the near future and will at that time address the allegations of misuse of funds drawn to its attention by the Honourable Member. It will then decide on any action to take. Should any irregularity be revealed, the Commission will take all appropriate steps at its disposal to remedy the situation in addition to informing the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

With regard to the Commission’s role in ensuring that the funding is effectively spent, the Migrants’ Forum has a contractual obligation to report to the Commission on its activities and does so regularly. This contractual obligation extends to annual submission of accounts which are then assessed by the Commission. A Commission official is also an observer on the executive committee of the Forum and the board of management.

(2001/C 72 E/250) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2355/00 by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and competition in connection with the situation of teachers in schools officially recognised as equivalent to State schools

The perpetuation in officially recognised schools in Italy of blatant disparities and discrimination contrary to the spirit of the Italian Constitution and European legislation on competition has prompted the questioners to raise the following issues at a higher level.

The question is therefore not intended to refer to or interfere with Article 126 of the EC Treaty, since the aim is not to deal with the organisation of school systems but with the infringement of the right to work caused by discrimination between the teaching staff of State schools and of those officially recognised as equivalent.

1. Teachers in these officially recognised schools have been allowed access to the competitive qualifying examination, in which, incomprehensibly, only half the years of service are recognised the overall mark includes both the level achieved in the examination and half the number of years of service. Why, when the final list is drawn up, is the service is ignored?

2. Can the Commission explain why the Italian Ministry of Education does not systematically allow teachers in officially recognised schools access to competitive examinations by qualification only since, once again, the years of service do not count? 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/195

3. Why, in the provincial authorities’ lists of supply teachers, does service in officially recognised schools only count for half (why not one third or two thirds? Does a teacher in such a school only work half time?).

4. Why, when a teacher passes the ordinary competitive examination, are the marks relating to teaching not recognised?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The question from the Honourable Members refers to discrimination encountered by teachers in schools recognised by the Italian State at the time of recruitment and recognition of their period of service.

This problem does not come under Community jurisdiction. Each Member State is responsible for laying down the conditions of access to its own public service. Disputes concerning provisions on this subject are therefore a matter for the national courts.

(2001/C 72 E/251) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2422/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Obstacles to the movement of goods between Spain and Portugal

The recent incidents involving Portuguese fishermen and traders in Matosinhos aimed at preventing the sale of Spanish sardines constitute a serious attack on fundamental Community freedoms, in particular the free movement of goods between two Member States.

It appears urgently necessary for the Commission to intervene with the Portuguese authorities in order to guarantee that those targeted by this campaign can carry on working normally.

Can the Commission say whether it has yet taken any action on this matter? If so, what type of action did it take and with what result? If it has not yet acted, what steps will it take? Will it keep the questioner informed of its actions and their outcome?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

In view of the fact that the Spanish authorities, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States (1), informed the Commission of the incidents referred to by the honourable Member, the Commission initiated the alert procedure laid down in Article 3 of the Regulation. In this regard, it asked the Portuguese authorities to confirm the facts and to take the necessary and proportionate measures to assure the free movement of goods. The Portuguese authorities replied within the required time limit, providing all the necessary information about the incidents and mentioning the adoption and introduction of measures such as increasing the number of police on the spot and holding special meetings with those involved in order to prevent further incidents. This exchange of information has been transmitted to the other Member States.

In the light of the positive outcome i.e. a rapid return to normality as a result of the alert procedure, the Commission has decided that it is not necessary at this stage to go ahead with the notification procedure referred to in Article 5 of Regulation No 2679/98.

(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998. C 72 E/196 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/252) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2434/00 by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: VAT and dress making

If a company established in Member State A sends goods to Member State B so that they can be made up by an independent dressmaker, and the goods are then, after being made up, sent directly from Member State B, on behalf of the company established in Member State A to the purchaser who is established in Member State C:

on the basis of the wording of the sixth VAT directive, is the company established in Member State A liable for VAT in Member State B?

if so, are there ways of simplifying this so as to prevent the identification of the company established in Member State A with the company in Member State B? Should a distinction be made in terms of whether the dressmaking was billed by the dressmaker to the company established in Member State A, or to that company’s final client established in Member State C?

if measures to achieve such simplification exist, where were they published, and have they been adopted by all the Member States?

if such measures as may exist have not been published by the Commission, why not?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-1680/00

The Commission would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the answer it has already given to that question (1).

(1) See p. 99.

(2001/C 72 E/253) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2489/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Work in prisons

There are approximately 54 000 inmates in Italian prisons, many of whom would like to work (even for low wages) but cannot do so for bureaucratic reasons.

What is the Commission’s opinion on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction in this matter. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/197

(2001/C 72 E/254) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2530/00 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (25 July 2000)

Subject: Fires in southern Europe

Will the Commission release emergency appropriations to cover the damage caused by the widespread fires which have raged across southern Europe and Greece, in particular, in recent days, in view of the need for exceptional funding to compensate those affected by the disaster and to restore the natural environment?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 September 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 72 E/255) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2545/00 by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE-DE) to the Commission (28 July 2000)

Subject: Decentralised cooperation with Latin America

The Commission apparently intends to suspend or phase out the Community programmes for decentralised cooperation with Latin America.

These programmes are currently cornerstones of EU cooperation with Latin America and their ability to involve members of civil society and the results they have achieved have been recognised.

What are the Commission’s real reasons for suspending these programmes?

Does it perhaps want to include measures of this kind among its negative priorities?

Could it be that Latin America will in future be one of the Commission’s negative priorities?

What political effects does the Commission think that a decision of this kind will have, particularly as regards the European Union’s credibility in Latin America?

Does the Commission not consider that its position is inconsistent with the statements made by the Heads of State and Government meeting in Rio de Janeiro in June 1999?

Lastly, is the Commission not breaking the commitment to openness it gave to Parliament and which Mr Prodi endorsed on his appointment?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (8 September 2000)

The Commission has not taken any decision aimed at suspending or terminating the Latin America decentralised cooperation programmes (AL INVEST, ALURE, ALFA, URB-AL). Rumours to that effect are purely speculative.

It is of course the Commission’s duty to evaluate the external aid instruments for which it is responsible in the light of the objectives it is pursuing, the practical results achieved using those instruments and the means at its disposal. C 72 E/198 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Against that background, it is true that the Commission is now taking stock of the programmes and their prospects. But no conclusions can be drawn at this stage.

Whatever conclusions may be drawn, the Commission is aware of the key role the decentralised programmes play in Latin America as a channel for dialogue with civil society on both sides of the Atlantic.

(2001/C 72 E/256) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2564/00 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Abolition of visas for Bulgaria and Romania

On 26 January 2000 the Commission recommended the abolition of the requirement that Bulgarian and Romanian citizens be in possession of a visa in order to enter the fifteen EU Member States.

What practical measures have since been adopted in order to implement that proposal?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-2061/00 by Mr Gahrton (1).

(1) See p. 174.

(2001/C 72 E/257) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2575/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) and Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Rules governing the application of agro-environmental measures in Portugal

It appears that there are considerable loopholes in the implementation of some agro-environmental measures in Portugal, particularly those relating to the preservation of extensive methods of cultivating cork oak and holm oak and organic farming.

These loopholes exist at three main levels:

a lack of preparation among the technical teams carrying out checks at regional level;

the lack of a regulatory framework as regards supervision;

the lack of prior information for farmers on the technical requirements to be met under the various measures.

As a result of these loopholes, there are frequent disparities as regards the interpretation of the legal and technical requirements for the correct implementation of the various measures and, consequently, farmers benefiting from these measures suffer unjust treatment. 6.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/199

Can the Commissioner responsible for agriculture and rural development provide detailed information on: 1. the legislation relating to the supervision of agro-environmental measures in Portugal; 2. the specific training provided for technical staff in the Portuguese Agriculture Ministry responsible for supervising agro-environmental measures; 3. whether it has recently carried out any inspections in Portugal in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 September 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 72 E/258) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2703/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (1 September 2000)

Subject: Residence of EU nationals in another Member State

Will the Commission please state the number of nationals of each Member State resident in each of the other Member States for each year for the last ten years for which figures are available?

Will it also state the number of non-EU nationals in each Member State in each year for ten years, indicating, if possible, the number of US nationals?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission (12 September 2000)

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

(2001/C 72 E/259) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2807/00 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission (4 September 2000)

Subject: Use of an industrial site reclaimed through EU aid

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

The expenditure on infrastructure to create the Development Area, and also some other operations in this cross-border area, have been heavily dependent on the Community Structural Funds. It seems that the Luxembourg Government has just decided to allocate 4 hectares of industrial land, reclaimed with European Union funding, for the rebuilding of the Mathias Adam lycée in Pétange.

Does the Commission regard this decision as being compatible with the objectives of the European Development Area? Did the European funds involved at the time also intend this industrial site to be used for educational activities? C 72 E/200 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (20 September 2000) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 72 E/260) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2811/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (4 September 2000) Subject: Improving the standard of slaughterhouses in candidate Member States In view of the impending accession of a number of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs), representatives of the EU’s agricultural sector are establishing contacts with possible partners in those countries. It appears that slaughterhouses in the CEECs rarely, if ever, comply with the strict European standards. Representatives of the Belgian slaughterhouses also point out that a number of slaughterhouses have had to be demolished because of their limited capacity. Provided the plans are modified, there is sufficient expertise within the Union to rebuild the demolished slaughterhouses, if so requested by the CEECs, thereby enabling them to be used again.

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

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 September 2000) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.