ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C 364 E Volume 44 of the European Communities 20 December 2001

English edition Information and Notices

Notice No Contents Page

I (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2001/C 364 E/001) E-3149/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Application of Community funds (Supplementary Answer) ...... 1 (2001/C 364 E/002) E-3196/00 by Esko Seppänen to the Commission Subject: EU funding for NGOs (Supplementary Answer) ...... 2

(2001/C 364 E/003) E-3441/00 by Heinz Kindermann to the Commission Subject: Union structural policy measures in the period from 2000 to 2006 (Supplementary Answer) ...... 2 (2001/C 364 E/004) E-3682/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Amounts allotted under and out-turn of the Structural Funds in Objective 1 regions (Supplementary Answer) ...... 3 (2001/C 364 E/005) E-3938/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Number of votes under QMV ...... 4 (2001/C 364 E/006) P-4069/00 by Antonio Di Pietro to the Commission Subject: Increase in Telecom subscription rate ...... 5

(2001/C 364 E/007) E-0040/01 by Jeffrey Titford to the Commission Subject: Human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia ...... 6 (2001/C 364 E/008) P-0345/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Interference by food distribution companies in political processes ...... 7

(2001/C 364 E/009) E-0410/01 by Karla Peijs to the Commission Subject: Ban on certification markings from private service undertakings ...... 7 (2001/C 364 E/010) P-0448/01 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Traffic accidents involving children ...... 8 (2001/C 364 E/011) E-0474/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Freshwater fishing in Ireland: ongoing disturbance of the natural balance in the Western Lakes Region .. 9 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 364 E/012) E-0512/01 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission Subject: Comparability of social statistics between the European Union and the USA ...... 11 (2001/C 364 E/013) E-0608/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Responsibility of national or local government for supervising animal protection ...... 12 (2001/C 364 E/014) E-0643/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: CAP reform and the EU budget ...... 13 (2001/C 364 E/015) E-0692/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Operation of projects funded by 2nd CSF (Supplementary Answer) ...... 14 (2001/C 364 E/016) E-0698/01 by Eurig Wyn to the Commission Subject: Physical Agents Directive ...... 15 (2001/C 364 E/017) E-0968/01 by Eurig Wyn to the Commission Subject: Restricted use of farm vehicles ...... 15 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/01 and E-0968/01 ...... 15 (2001/C 364 E/018) E-0789/01 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Bullfighting: BSE-risk due to failure to comply with Decision 00/418/EC ...... 16 (2001/C 364 E/019) E-0854/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Taxation levels ...... 17 (2001/C 364 E/020) E-0865/01 by Anders Wijkman to the Commission Subject: Opportunity afforded by enlargement for alternative energy production and job creation ...... 18 (2001/C 364 E/021) E-0884/01 by Nuala Ahern to the Commission Subject: Radiological sampling at military ranges where depleted uranium munitions have been tested ...... 19 (2001/C 364 E/022) E-0979/01 by Nuala Ahern to the Commission Subject: Test firing of depleted uranium shells ...... 19 (2001/C 364 E/023) E-0980/01 by Nuala Ahern to the Commission Subject: Surveys of environmental radioactivity ...... 19 (2001/C 364 E/024) E-0981/01 by Nuala Ahern to the Commission Subject: Firing of depleted uranium shells into the Solway Firth, United Kingdom ...... 19 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0884/01, E-0979/01, E-0980/01 and E-0981/01 . . 19 (2001/C 364 E/025) E-0891/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Subsidies for the Sensus police project ...... 20 (2001/C 364 E/026) E-0893/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Subsidies for the Sensus police project ...... 21 (2001/C 364 E/027) E-0894/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Subsidies for the Sensus police project ...... 21 (2001/C 364 E/028) E-0895/01 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Veterinary services and laboratories, programmes for eradicating and monitoring animal diseases and spending in the veterinary sector in Greece ...... 22 (2001/C 364 E/029) P-0896/01 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Programmes for eradicating and monitoring animal diseases and spending in the veterinary sector in Greece ...... 24 (2001/C 364 E/030) E-0908/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Failure to notify the Commission of State aids to Spanish electricity companies ...... 26 (2001/C 364 E/031) E-0918/01 by Dana Scallon and John Corrie to the Council Subject: Habitat+5 and the family ...... 26 (2001/C 364 E/032) E-0938/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Faster payment of its bills by the Commission ...... 27 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 364 E/033) E-0943/01 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Aid under the Regional Fund for quality controls of Styrian kernel oil pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2081/1992 ...... 28 (2001/C 364 E/034) E-0945/01 by Graham Watson to the Council Subject: Visits of Taiwanese government officials to the EU ...... 29 (2001/C 364 E/035) E-0953/01 by María Ayuso González to the Commission Subject: Packaging for fruit and vegetables ...... 30 (2001/C 364 E/036) E-0998/01 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: 1999 discharge  agriculture (Supplementary Answer) ...... 30 (2001/C 364 E/037) E-1004/01 by Edward McMillan-Scott to the Commission Subject: European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights ...... 32 (2001/C 364 E/038) E-1021/01 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Council Subject: Relations between India and Pakistan ...... 34 (2001/C 364 E/039) E-1041/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: Discovery of mass graves and disappearance of civilians in Chechnya ...... 35 (2001/C 364 E/040) E-1044/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: Oppression of women in Afghanistan and the need for European Union humanitarian intervention .... 36 (2001/C 364 E/041) E-1045/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: Measures presented by the United Kingdom to reduce the flow of refugees and immigrants into the European Union ...... 36 (2001/C 364 E/042) E-1048/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Women’s employment in the Spanish state ...... 37 (2001/C 364 E/043) E-1060/01 by John Corrie to the Commission Subject: Assistance for the development of church-based or other religious NGOs ...... 38 (2001/C 364 E/044) E-1065/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Coordination of the Sensus project ...... 39 (2001/C 364 E/045) E-1072/01 by Stavros Xarchakos to the Commission Subject: Irregularities in Greek population census of March 2001 ...... 40 (2001/C 364 E/046) E-1080/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Protracted settlement procedures following (road) accidents in Switzerland ...... 41 (2001/C 364 E/047) E-1082/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Blurring of interests and distortion of competition with the Sensus project ...... 42 (2001/C 364 E/048) E-1084/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: The Sensus project: the European equivalent of DARPA ...... 43 (2001/C 364 E/049) E-1093/01 by David Bowe to the Commission Subject: Link between Crohn’s disease and paratuberculosis ...... 45 (2001/C 364 E/050) E-1099/01 by Olle Schmidt to the Council Subject: Aid for the victims of hurricane Mitch ...... 45 (2001/C 364 E/051) P-1100/01 by Olivier Dupuis to the Council Subject: Chechnya ...... 46 (2001/C 364 E/052) E-1109/01 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the Council Subject: The Luxembourg compromise and the Ioannina compromise after the ratification of the Nice Treaty ... 48 (2001/C 364 E/053) P-1130/01 by Antonio Tajani to the Council Subject: World-wide genocide of Christians ...... 48 (2001/C 364 E/054) E-1142/01 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Choice of location for the European Food Safety Authority ...... 49 (2001/C 364 E/055) E-1144/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Application of ISO standards in EU Member States ...... 50 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 364 E/056) E-1154/01 by Struan Stevenson to the Commission Subject: Health and consumer protection ...... 51 (2001/C 364 E/057) E-1155/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Tuna steaks ...... 52 (2001/C 364 E/058) E-1175/01 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Council Subject: Birth deficit ...... 52 (2001/C 364 E/059) E-1180/01 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Plan Colombia ...... 53 (2001/C 364 E/060) E-1184/01 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Aid to Afghanistan ...... 55 (2001/C 364 E/061) E-1191/01 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission Subject: Use of an industrial site reclaimed through EU aid ...... 56 (2001/C 364 E/062) E-1193/01 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission Subject: Dependence of civil society organisations on Community funding ...... 56 (2001/C 364 E/063) E-1195/01 by Lousewies van der Laan and Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Non-vaccination policy on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) ...... 58 (2001/C 364 E/064) E-1202/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Threat to cultural monument from building project ...... 59 (2001/C 364 E/065) E-1205/01 by Francesco Turchi to the Commission Subject: Organisational and restructuring problems of the Finmeccanica group ...... 60 (2001/C 364 E/066) P-1208/01 by Gérard Caudron to the Council Subject: Closure of healthy undertakings ...... 61 (2001/C 364 E/067) E-1213/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Council Subject: Protection of Orthodox Christian monasteries in Kosovo ...... 62 (2001/C 364 E/068) E-1214/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Protection of Orthodox Christian monasteries in Kosovo ...... 63 (2001/C 364 E/069) E-1215/01 by Francesco Speroni to the Council Subject: Lack of analytical index in Selected instruments taken from the Treaties ...... 63 (2001/C 364 E/070) E-1216/01 by Joke Swiebel to the Commission Subject: Statistics of disabled people employed by the European institutions ...... 64 (2001/C 364 E/071) E-1221/01 by Eurig Wyn to the Commission Subject: EU aid to Colombia ...... 65 (2001/C 364 E/072) P-1234/01 by Carlos Carnero González to the Council Subject: Arms sales by Spain to Equatorial Guinea and EU Code of Conduct ...... 66 (2001/C 364 E/073) E-1247/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Distortion of competition in the Belgian Federation by failure to comply with Directive 91/321/EC .... 66 (2001/C 364 E/074) E-1248/01 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Adulteration of food products ...... 67 (2001/C 364 E/075) E-1252/01 by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero to the Council Subject: Aid to Namibia and fundamental rights ...... 68 (2001/C 364 E/076) E-1255/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: European Union attitude to the promotion of breast-feeding ...... 69 (2001/C 364 E/077) E-1266/01 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Special regional planning studies ...... 70 (2001/C 364 E/078) E-1277/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Animal slaughter and pollution ...... 71 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 364 E/079) E-1281/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Problems associated with drought and lack of water for irrigation in Greece ...... 72 (2001/C 364 E/080) E-1284/01 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: EU direct tax ...... 73 (2001/C 364 E/081) E-1285/01 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: VAT ...... 74 (2001/C 364 E/082) E-1286/01 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Vehicle tax ...... 76 (2001/C 364 E/083) E-1296/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Impact of the trade policy on the Common Agricultural Policy ...... 77 (2001/C 364 E/084) E-1298/01 by Generoso Andria, Luigi Cesaro, Giuseppe Gargani, Giuseppe Nisticò and Stefano Zappalà to the Commission Subject: Waste problem  construction of a waste screening plant in Palomonte ...... 79 (2001/C 364 E/085) E-1309/01 by Pedro Marset Campos to the Commission Subject: Position regarding the water-treatment plants in Molina de Segura (Murcia, Spain) ...... 80 (2001/C 364 E/086) P-1313/01 by Gunilla Carlsson to the Commission Subject: Tax on wine in Sweden ...... 81 (2001/C 364 E/087) E-1316/01 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Directive on the taxation of savings ...... 82 (2001/C 364 E/088) E-1317/01 by Theresa Villiers to the Council Subject: Directive on the taxation of savings ...... 83 (2001/C 364 E/089) E-1318/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Council Subject: System of licensing radio stations in the Attica basin ...... 83 (2001/C 364 E/090) E-1321/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: General census in Greece ...... 84 (2001/C 364 E/091) E-1324/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Article 296(1)(b) of the EC Treaty ...... 85 (2001/C 364 E/092) E-1339/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Religious discrimination ...... 86 (2001/C 364 E/093) E-1342/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Employment rights for ministers of religion ...... 87 (2001/C 364 E/094) E-1343/01 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the Commission Subject: World conference against racism, discrimination and xenophobia ...... 88 (2001/C 364 E/095) E-1350/01 by Richard Corbett to the Commission Subject: Implementation of Seveso II ...... 89 (2001/C 364 E/096) E-1352/01 by Richard Corbett to the Commission Subject: Tricycles for disabled people ...... 89 (2001/C 364 E/097) E-1353/01 by Richard Corbett to the Council Subject: Human rights in Malaysia ...... 90 (2001/C 364 E/098) E-1354/01 by Richard Corbett to the Commission Subject: Human rights in Malaysia ...... 91 (2001/C 364 E/099) E-1358/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Xerox restructuring and consultation ...... 91 (2001/C 364 E/100) E-1366/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Protecting stray dogs in Romania ...... 92 (2001/C 364 E/101) E-1368/01 by Nuala Ahern to the Commission Subject: Foot-and-mouth crisis ...... 93 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 364 E/102) E-1377/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Regional fisheries organisations ...... 94

(2001/C 364 E/103) E-1380/01 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: Human rights situation in Nigeria ...... 95

(2001/C 364 E/104) P-1386/01 by Guido Podestà to the Council Subject: Escalation of violence in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ...... 96

(2001/C 364 E/105) E-1387/01 by Roger Helmer to the Commission Subject: Use of EU Institutions’ facilities ...... 97

(2001/C 364 E/106) E-1390/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Comparative assessment of education systems ...... 98

(2001/C 364 E/107) E-1392/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Public investment ...... 98

(2001/C 364 E/108) E-1393/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Public investment in the Member States ...... 99

(2001/C 364 E/109) E-1394/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Corporation tax ...... 100

(2001/C 364 E/110) E-1396/01 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Directive for a general framework for informing and consulting employees ...... 100

(2001/C 364 E/111) P-1398/01 by Luís Queiró to the Council Subject: Situation of Portuguese hostages in Cabinda ...... 101

(2001/C 364 E/112) E-1402/01 by Emilia Müller to the Commission Subject: EU funding for the completion of the A6 Amberg-Waidhaus motorway ...... 102

(2001/C 364 E/113) E-1403/01 by Emilia Müller to the Commission Subject: Research project on avoiding damage to fish in hydroelectric power stations ...... 103

(2001/C 364 E/114) E-1407/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Effects of foot-and-mouth disease on the use of EU funding ...... 104

(2001/C 364 E/115) E-1412/01 by Evelyne Gebhardt, Heinz Kindermann and Willi Görlach to the Commission Subject: Free trade in the plant protection sector, EU Directive 91/414/EEC ...... 105

(2001/C 364 E/116) E-1416/01 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Equal opportunities for men and women ...... 106

(2001/C 364 E/117) E-1420/01 by Luciano Caveri to the Commission Subject: Bilateral agreements between the European Union and Switzerland ...... 107

(2001/C 364 E/118) E-1425/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Bread and food safety ...... 107

(2001/C 364 E/119) E-1426/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Trafficking in children ...... 108

(2001/C 364 E/120) E-1429/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Delay in supplies of railway equipment rolling stock by European legislation ...... 109

(2001/C 364 E/121) E-1437/01 by Stavros Xarchakos and Antonios Trakatellis to the Council Subject: Illegal issue of visas and passports and entry of third country nationals into Greece and the EU ...... 111

(2001/C 364 E/122) E-1442/01 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Plant for the production of refuse-derived fuel in Gallicano (Lucca), Italy ...... 112

(2001/C 364 E/123) P-1445/01 by Joan Colom i Naval to the Commission Subject: Quebec agreement and relations between the EU and Latin America ...... 113 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 364 E/124) P-1447/01 by Michael Cashman to the Commission Subject: Cross-border banking charges after implementation of the euro ...... 114 (2001/C 364 E/125) E-1448/01 by Mogens Camre to the Commission Subject: Translation of regulations concerning the transport of dangerous goods ...... 114 (2001/C 364 E/126) E-1451/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Road transport of hazardous goods ...... 115 (2001/C 364 E/127) E-1455/01 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Studies grant ...... 116 (2001/C 364 E/128) E-1456/01 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Seals ...... 117 (2001/C 364 E/129) E-1457/01 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Disciplinary action against staff ...... 117 (2001/C 364 E/130) E-1458/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews and Caroline Jackson to the Commission Subject: Biological teatment of biodegradable waste ...... 118 (2001/C 364 E/131) E-1461/01 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the Commission Subject: Funding earmarked for nuclear energy research in the Sixth framework programme for research ..... 119 (2001/C 364 E/132) E-1465/01 by Bruno Gollnisch to the Council Subject: Time-share holiday swindles ...... 120 (2001/C 364 E/133) E-1469/01 by Guido Podestà to the Commission Subject: Women and society in Afghanistan ...... 121 (2001/C 364 E/134) E-1471/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Israeli taxes ...... 122 (2001/C 364 E/135) E-1481/01 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: The EU-South Africa Fisheries Agreement ...... 122 (2001/C 364 E/136) E-1482/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Clergy and employment rights in the UK ...... 123 (2001/C 364 E/137) E-1484/01 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Catalan and the European Year of Languages ...... 124 (2001/C 364 E/138) E-1485/01 by Robert Goebbels to the Council Subject: Identity checks at Charles de Gaulle airport ...... 125 (2001/C 364 E/139) E-1488/01 by Jean-Claude Martinez to the Commission Subject: Fraud involving animal meal ...... 125 (2001/C 364 E/140) E-1489/01 by Giovanni Pittella to the Commission Subject: Recruitment of OHIM staff ...... 126 (2001/C 364 E/141) E-1493/01 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Management of biodegradable waste ...... 127 (2001/C 364 E/142) E-1495/01 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Animal testing and the Chemicals Strategy ...... 128 (2001/C 364 E/143) E-1497/01 by Raimon Obiols i Germà to the Commission Subject: Troika visit to Algeria ...... 129 (2001/C 364 E/144) P-1501/01 by Anneli Hulthén to the Commission Subject: Rare disorders ...... 130 (2001/C 364 E/145) P-1504/01 by Patricia McKenna to the Commission Subject: Transport of animals ...... 131 (2001/C 364 E/146) P-1510/01 by Gunilla Carlsson to the Council Subject: Council President’s statements in North Korea ...... 132 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 364 E/147) E-1512/01 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Age limit applicable in Open Competition COM/A/6/01 (OJ C 110, 11.4.2001, p. 15) for the recruitment of administrators ...... 132 (2001/C 364 E/148) E-1518/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Licensing of free miners in the Forest of Dean ...... 133 (2001/C 364 E/149) E-1521/01 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the Commission Subject: Renewable energies project on the island of El Hierro (Canaries) ...... 134 (2001/C 364 E/150) E-1524/01 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission Subject: Unequal treatment of EU citizens by a Swedish supermarket chain ...... 135 (2001/C 364 E/151) E-1526/01 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the Commission Subject: Transport of animals by sea ...... 136 (2001/C 364 E/152) E-1527/01 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Adulterated wine in Western Portugal ...... 137 (2001/C 364 E/153) E-1533/01 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the Commission Subject: The Commission’s attitude towards nuclear power ...... 137 (2001/C 364 E/154) E-1541/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Prevention of animal diseases by allowing agricultural markets to take better account of natural biological laws ...... 138 (2001/C 364 E/155) E-1542/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Implementation of alternative and supplementary measures to bring to a rapid end the foot-and-mouth epidemic ...... 139 (2001/C 364 E/156) E-1543/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Financial measures to limit the transport of livestock and meat and ensure that subsidies do not result in spurious trading ...... 142 (2001/C 364 E/157) E-1548/01 by Emilia Müller to the Commission Subject: Development of yacht marinas in Greece ...... 143 (2001/C 364 E/158) E-1549/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: 20 % penalty in respect of tobacco subsidies for 1997 in southern Serrai (Greece) ...... 144 (2001/C 364 E/159) E-1552/01 by Terence Wynn to the Commission Subject: French tax provisions for foreign life insurance ...... 144 (2001/C 364 E/160) E-1554/01 by María Rodríguez Ramos to the Commission Subject: A thermal power plant to be built in Tordesillas, Spain ...... 145 (2001/C 364 E/161) E-1555/01 by María Rodríguez Ramos to the Commission Subject: A thermal power plant to be built in Tordesillas, Spain ...... 146 (2001/C 364 E/162) E-1560/01 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Recognition of the Dolomites as part of the World Heritage ...... 147 (2001/C 364 E/163) E-1562/01 by Stephen Hughes to the Commission Subject: Information for project planning and evaluation ...... 148 (2001/C 364 E/164) E-1568/01 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Application and amendment of Directives 96/82/EC and 96/61/EC ...... 148 (2001/C 364 E/165) E-1574/01 by Luciana Sbarbati to the Commission Subject: Waste disposal: public health issues and environmental impact ...... 150 (2001/C 364 E/166) E-1575/01 by Lousewies van der Laan to the Commission Subject: Renovation of the Berlaymont Building ...... 152 (2001/C 364 E/167) P-1578/01 by Linda McAvan to the Commission Subject: Fifth framework projects in the Yorkshire and Humberside region ...... 153 (2001/C 364 E/168) P-1581/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Recent events in Angola ...... 153 (2001/C 364 E/169) E-1584/01 by Nirj Deva to the Commission Subject: Bathing water in France ...... 154 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 364 E/170) E-1589/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Causes of the increased incidence of tumours ...... 154 (2001/C 364 E/171) E-1597/01 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: European Commission answer to Written Question E-0194/01 concerning the ‘Iron Rhine’ railway line . 155 (2001/C 364 E/172) P-1600/01 by Toine Manders to the Commission Subject: Court of Justice open competition  discrimination on the ground of age ...... 156 (2001/C 364 E/173) E-1602/01 by Raina Echerer to the Commission Subject: Commission Decision of 29 June 2000 ...... 158 (2001/C 364 E/174) E-1608/01 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Commission Subject: Effects of Mr Berlusconi’s election programme on the stability of the euro area ...... 159 (2001/C 364 E/175) E-1616/01 by James Provan to the Commission Subject: Cost of refurbishment of the Berlaymont building ...... 159 (2001/C 364 E/176) E-1617/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Aid for construction of plants for the separation and treatment of light packaging ...... 160 (2001/C 364 E/177) E-1619/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Candidacy of Malaga for the seat of the EU’s future Maritime Safety Agency ...... 161 (2001/C 364 E/178) E-1623/01 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Recognition as medical treatment centres of mineshafts used for therapeutic purposes ...... 161 (2001/C 364 E/179) E-1626/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Standardisation and promotion of olive oil ...... 162 (2001/C 364 E/180) E-1629/01 by Caroline Jackson to the Commission Subject: EU funding for research involving primates ...... 163 (2001/C 364 E/181) E-1633/01 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Patient information on medicines ...... 164 (2001/C 364 E/182) E-1635/01 by Pere Esteve to the Commission Subject: Property purchases in Majorca ...... 164 (2001/C 364 E/183) E-1645/01 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the Commission Subject: Extraordinary aid for the conversion of the fleet following the failure of negotiations on the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement ...... 166 (2001/C 364 E/184) E-1648/01 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Support for fishermen and shipowners during periods of biological rest or inability to fish due to bad weather ...... 167 (2001/C 364 E/185) E-1654/01 by PROF. SIR Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Animal welfare and foie gras ...... 168 (2001/C 364 E/186) E-1655/01 by Pere Esteve to the Commission Subject: Double fiscal deficit in the Balearic Islands ...... 168 (2001/C 364 E/187) P-1658/01 by Jan Andersson to the Commission Subject: Corporate social responsibility ...... 169 (2001/C 364 E/188) P-1659/01 by Françoise Grossetête to the Commission Subject: Community rules concerning protection of the confidentiality of company lawyers’ opinions ...... 170 (2001/C 364 E/189) P-1661/01 by Emilio Menéndez del Valle to the Commission Subject: Imprisonment of an Egyptian-US sociologist ...... 171 (2001/C 364 E/190) P-1664/01 by Francesco Fiori to the Commission Subject: Asymmetries in the internal electricity market ...... 172 (2001/C 364 E/191) P-1688/01 by Renato Brunetta to the Commission Subject: Purchase by Electricité de France (EDF) of a 20 % holding in Montedison ...... 172 Joint answer to Written Questions P-1664/01 and P-1688/01 ...... 173 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 364 E/192) P-1666/01 by Luigi Cocilovo to the Commission Subject: Failure to comply with Directive 85/337/EEC and Directive 97/11/EEC ...... 174 (2001/C 364 E/193) E-1669/01 by Gerhard Schmid to the Commission Subject: Daytime running lights and twilight switches ...... 175 (2001/C 364 E/194) E-1674/01 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: ILO conference  June 2001 ...... 176 (2001/C 364 E/195) E-1677/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Redefinition of the NUTS ...... 176 (2001/C 364 E/196) E-1678/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Transport networks and regional planning ...... 177 (2001/C 364 E/197) E-1686/01 by Ilka Schröder to the Commission Subject: Video monitoring in nursery schools ...... 178 (2001/C 364 E/198) P-1690/01 by Jean-Claude Fruteau to the Commission Subject: Cohesion policy ...... 179 (2001/C 364 E/199) P-1695/01 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Conservation reservoirs on the Aegean islands ...... 179 (2001/C 364 E/200) E-1699/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Poor quality of fixed-line telephone services in Greece ...... 181 (2001/C 364 E/201) E-1703/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Taxation on cars ...... 182 (2001/C 364 E/202) E-1704/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Selection procedures for R & D projects for 2002-2006 ...... 183 (2001/C 364 E/203) E-1707/01 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Road link between Vic and Olot (Catalonia, Spain) ...... 184 (2001/C 364 E/204) E-1708/01 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Sale and manufacture of chewing tobacco in contravention of the directive ...... 186 (2001/C 364 E/205) E-1712/01 by Margrietus van den Berg to the Commission Subject: Trafficking in young footballers ...... 186 (2001/C 364 E/206) E-1718/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Differences in interpretation in the various Member States with regard to the participation or exclusion of independent auditors and environmental auditors in the implementation of the EMAS scheme...... 189 (2001/C 364 E/207) P-1720/01 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the Commission Subject: European grant to the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (B.P.R.C.) in Rijswijk ...... 190 (2001/C 364 E/208) P-1723/01 by Willi Görlach to the Commission Subject: Threat posed to European vine growing by phylloxera ...... 191 (2001/C 364 E/209) P-1724/01 by Dana Scallon to the Commission Subject: Farmers in Europe ...... 192 (2001/C 364 E/210) P-1742/01 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Air traffic ...... 194 (2001/C 364 E/211) E-1748/01 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the Commission Subject: Takeover of Hidrocantábrico by the Villar Mir and EnBW group ...... 194 (2001/C 364 E/212) E-1751/01 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya to the Commission Subject: Aid for dried fruit ...... 195 (2001/C 364 E/213) E-1754/01 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Electricity from renewable sources in the Netherlands ...... 196 (2001/C 364 E/214) E-1755/01 by Dorette Corbey and Margrietus van den Berg to the Commission Subject: Mussel beds in the German part of the Waddenzee ...... 197 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 364 E/215) E-1757/01 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Support for olive-growers affected by inclement weather in Portugal ...... 198 (2001/C 364 E/216) E-1758/01 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Discrimination in access to civil service posts ...... 199 (2001/C 364 E/217) P-1762/01 by Michael Cashman to the Commission Subject: Meat imports ...... 200 (2001/C 364 E/218) P-1769/01 by Luciana Sbarbati to the Commission Subject: The electronic market and the safeguarding of designations of origin ...... 201 (2001/C 364 E/219) E-1774/01 by Ursula Stenzel to the Commission Subject: German packaging regulation  discrimination against drinks containers ...... 202 (2001/C 364 E/220) E-1775/01 by Reinhard Rack to the Commission Subject: German packaging regulation  inadequate protection for free movement of goods and drinks importers 203 (2001/C 364 E/221) E-1776/01 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: German packaging regulation  trade barrier for drinks importers ...... 203 (2001/C 364 E/222) E-1777/01 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Threat of trade barrier to drinks industry shipments to Germany ...... 204 (2001/C 364 E/223) P-1823/01 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Introduction of compulsory deposit on disposable packaging in Germany ...... 204 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1774/01, E-1775/01, E-1776/01, E-1777/01 and P-1823/01 ...... 205 (2001/C 364 E/224) E-1780/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Drugs cooperation with Latin America ...... 205 (2001/C 364 E/225) E-1781/01 by Carlos Carnero González to the Commission Subject: Request for further information concerning the construction of an industrial estate in a special bird protection area in San Fernando de Henares (Spain) ...... 206 (2001/C 364 E/226) E-1791/01 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights ...... 207 (2001/C 364 E/227) P-1792/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Current system of car taxation and its inconsistency with the internal market and free trade ...... 207 (2001/C 364 E/228) E-1796/01 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Licensing of radio stations and measures to guarantee pluralism regarding the mass media ...... 208 (2001/C 364 E/229) E-1800/01 by Bernard Poignant to the Commission Subject: Scientific studies into the unintentional catching of marine mammals ...... 209 (2001/C 364 E/230) E-1801/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Increase in the incidence of depression among the elderly ...... 210 (2001/C 364 E/231) E-1809/01 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Olympic boxing arena ...... 211 (2001/C 364 E/232) P-1814/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Water shortage on the Aegean islands ...... 211 (2001/C 364 E/233) E-1818/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Commission Ispra Joint Research Centre (Italy) ...... 212 (2001/C 364 E/234) P-1835/01 by Brice Hortefeux to the Commission Subject: Health implications of enlargement ...... 213 (2001/C 364 E/235) E-1842/01 by Maria Martens to the Commission Subject: Dutch abortion ship ...... 215 (2001/C 364 E/236) P-1844/01 by W.G. van Velzen to the Commission Subject: European standard for radiation from mobile phones ...... 215 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 364 E/237) E-1845/01 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the Commission Subject: Breaches of Community rules in the Netherlands ...... 217 (2001/C 364 E/238) E-1848/01 by Angelika Niebler to the Commission Subject: Use of geoinformation in the Member States ...... 217 (2001/C 364 E/239) P-1885/01 by Marco Pannella to the Commission Subject: Montagnard tribes in Vietnam ...... 219 (2001/C 364 E/240) E-1889/01 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Accession of new countries to the Union ...... 220 (2001/C 364 E/241) P-1910/01 by Marialiese Flemming to the Commission Subject: Discrimination ...... 221 (2001/C 364 E/242) E-1913/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Joint fisheries undertakings in Tunisian fishing-grounds ...... 221 (2001/C 364 E/243) E-1918/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Results of Community aid for establishment of joint fisheries undertakings ...... 222 (2001/C 364 E/244) E-1921/01 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the Commission Subject: Public procurement and invitations to tender ...... 223 (2001/C 364 E/245) P-1924/01 by Stavros Xarchakos to the Commission Subject: Racist organisations in applicant countries ...... 224 (2001/C 364 E/246) E-1926/01 by Joachim Wuermeling to the Commission Subject: Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993: incorporation into national law ...... 225 (2001/C 364 E/247) E-1935/01 by Isabelle Caullery to the Commission Subject: Promotion of tourism in Europe ...... 226 (2001/C 364 E/248) P-1940/01 by Joaquim Miranda to the Commission Subject: Natural gas supply in the Lisbon area ...... 227 (2001/C 364 E/249) E-1942/01 by John Purvis to the Commission Subject: Future regulation of human tissue products ...... 228 (2001/C 364 E/250) E-1943/01 by Pere Esteve to the Commission Subject: Regularising the work of tourist guides ...... 228 (2001/C 364 E/251) E-1947/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Turkey’s restrictions on Assyrians/members of the Syriac Orthodox Church ...... 229 (2001/C 364 E/252) P-1949/01 by Johan Van Hecke to the Commission Subject: Presidency declaration of 12 June 2001 on Sudan ...... 230 (2001/C 364 E/253) P-1956/01 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Nationalisation of the property of Community nationals in Ethiopia ...... 230 (2001/C 364 E/254) P-1959/01 by Caroline Lucas to the Commission Subject: Participation in ASEM Meetings ...... 231 (2001/C 364 E/255) P-1960/01 by Renato Brunetta to the Commission Subject: State aids to Electricité de France (EDF) ...... 232 (2001/C 364 E/256) P-1961/01 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the Commission Subject: EC-Macao cooperation officer ...... 232 (2001/C 364 E/257) E-1971/01 by Elizabeth Lynne to the Commission Subject: Liquid Petroleum Gas fuel ...... 233 (2001/C 364 E/258) E-2006/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Chemicals in fast food ...... 234 (2001/C 364 E/259) E-2009/01 by Nelly Maes to the Commission Subject: Checks on Belgian visas ...... 235 (2001/C 364 E/260) E-2010/01 by Nelly Maes to the Commission Subject: Checks on Belgian visas ...... 236 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page Joint answer to Written Questions E-2009/01 and E-2010/01 ...... 237 (2001/C 364 E/261) E-2014/01 by Jo Leinen to the Commission Subject: Plans for the ‘Gigapole’ shopping centre on the Franco-German border (district of Forbach) ...... 237 (2001/C 364 E/262) E-2057/01 by Dirk Sterckx to the Commission Subject: Directive 1999/44/EC concerning guarantees on consumer goods: inadequate protection of shopkeepers . 238 (2001/C 364 E/263) E-2072/01 by Herbert Bösch to the Commission Subject: European legal bases for the prosecution of persons involved in extreme right-wing activities ...... 239 (2001/C 364 E/264) P-2080/01 by Bernd Lange to the Commission Subject: Emissions inside motor vehicles ...... 240 (2001/C 364 E/265) P-2081/01 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Leader+ programme delay ...... 240 (2001/C 364 E/266) P-2086/01 by Pat Gallagher to the Commission Subject: Simplification of CAP administration ...... 241 (2001/C 364 E/267) P-2088/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Regulation on the set-aside of European farmland ...... 242 (2001/C 364 E/268) E-2091/01 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Ban on night working for young people  4 a.m. start for bakers’ apprentices ...... 243 (2001/C 364 E/269) E-2097/01 by Pat Gallagher to the Commission Subject: ESF support for training in Connaught, Ulster ...... 244 (2001/C 364 E/270) P-2109/01 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Price differences in the EU ...... 245 (2001/C 364 E/271) E-2121/01 by Johannes Voggenhuber to the Commission Subject: The influence of certain consolidation measures by the Republic of Austria on the financial balance of the State sector in accordance with the European System of Integrated Economic Accounts (ESA) 95 ...... 246 (2001/C 364 E/272) E-2123/01 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Transposition of Community legislation into the law of the Member States ...... 247 (2001/C 364 E/273) E-2164/01 by Colette Flesch to the Commission Subject: Brussels: a capital for Europe? ...... 248 (2001/C 364 E/274) P-2226/01 by Roger Helmer to the Commission Subject: Tobacco directive, Article 7 ...... 248 (2001/C 364 E/275) P-2227/01 by Herman Schmid to the Commission Subject: Economic resources of the European political parties ...... 249 (2001/C 364 E/276) P-2231/01 by Hans Kronberger to the Commission Subject: Liberalisation of shop-opening hours ...... 250 (2001/C 364 E/277) P-2335/01 by Gerard Collins to the Commission Subject: Dissolution of the Advisory Council on Medical Training (ACMT) ...... 251 (2001/C 364 E/278) E-2399/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Repatriation of powers ...... 252

EN 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/1

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2001/C 364 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3149/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Application of Community funds

The Portuguese industrial company Preceram S.A., which is based in Pombal (Portugal) and is active in the ceramics sector, still uses highly polluting manufacturing processes which, as illustrated in reports drawn up by specialists at the Beira Litoral Regional Directorate for Agriculture, do enormous damage to local farmers, although the latter have never been offered any kind of compensation. The crops which they grow (pine trees, vines, maize and fruit) regularly display serious deformities and clear signs of charring.

The company has allegedly received Community funding for the purpose of introducing anti-pollution technologies but, according to the local farmers, nothing has changed.

Would the Commission therefore provide information concerning any Community funding which the company may have received and the action which is due to be taken in order to prevent the farmland in the area around the factory from being further polluted?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Portuguese company Preceram Indústrias de Construção has received Structural Fund aid under the following Community measures.

One project was approved under PNCIAP/SIBR (a regional incentive scheme), which was included in the Community Support framework for Portuguese Objective 1 regions during the 1989-1993 programming period. The contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was PTE 133,8 million (about € 670 000).

Under the Operational Programme for the modernisation of the economic fabric, which was included in the Community Support framework for Portuguese Objective 1 regions during the 1994-1999 program- ming period, four projects were approved under the following measures:

 a project for diagnosis and strategic analysis under measure 3.1 of the Industry subprogramme (PEDIP). The ERDF contribution was € 17 000;

 a project for innovation and internationalisation of the company’s structures under measure 3.3 of the Industry subprogramme (PEDIP). The ERDF contribution, which took the form of an interest-rate subsidy, was around € 375 000, while the European Social Fund contributed € 180 000; C 364 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

 a project for technological modernisation of the company under measure 3.5 of the Industry subprogramme (PEDIP). The ERDF contribution was around € 154 000;

 a project for diagnosis and internationalisation strategy under measure 1 of the Commerce and Services subprogramme. The ERDF contribution was around € 36 000.

An ERDF contribution of around € 112 000 was granted for a project to increase company productivity under Subprogramme C (Productivity and technical assistance) of the Retex Community initiative (1).

None of the above projects involved direct investments in the environmental field. However, some investments realised did lead to improvements, in particular by reducing the rate of ash and unburnt particles generated during the manufacturing process.

According to information from the Portuguese Directorate-General for the Environment, the company has implemented measures to comply with environmental legislation in force. Problems still remaining should be solved fairly soon, in particular thanks to the use of natural gas.

(1) Conversion of the textile industry.

(2001/C 364 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3196/00 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: EU funding for NGOs

The Commission is able to support a number of NGOs’ activities in various countries within the limits of the EU’s annual budget. Since this aid should be public and transparent, can the Commission state to which organisations the Commission or its Finnish office directed EU budget appropriations in 1999, and what amounts were involved?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

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

(2001/C 364 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3441/00 by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Union structural policy measures in the period from 2000 to 2006

On 24 and 25 March 1999 the Berlin European Council decided to earmark € 260 billion for the Union’s structural policy measures in the period from 2000 to 2006.

The Council issued the regulations on the various Funds on 21 June 1999.

The Structural Funds are used to finance programmes to promote economic and social development in the fifteen Member States. The activities financed under them are intended to make for relatively high concentration of resources in financial and geographical terms, decentralised management, more effective supervision, and greater efficiency. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/3

Especially in the light of the last point, can the Commission say:  what assistance operations are already under way; and  which areas have yet to receive payments?

To clarify the previous question, can it supply tables indicating:  when the Member States submitted their draft operational programmes; and  the time taken for the Commission to reach the necessary decisions?

While the Commission was taking its decisions, were there any instances of failure to meet the five-month time-limit laid down in Article 15 of the general Structural Funds Regulation? If so, why?

Could the Commission also supply tables specifying:  when the Member States submitted their draft national guidelines; and  when the Commission took the necessary decisions?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (19 July 2001)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretariat tables showing the date of submission by the Member States of Community support frameworks, single programming documents and operational programmes under Objectives 1 and 2 of the European Regional Development Fund and the actual or expected date of adoption by the Commission.

Most of these decisions were taken after expiry of the five-month period laid down in Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1).

The reasons for this delay are mainly the result of the considerable effort of adaptation required from the Member States and the Commission in preparing, negotiating and approving each document because of the arrangements and requirements of this new Regulation, particularly as regards the systems for implementation and surveillance, the establishment of new structures for these purposes and the strengthening of partnership and the incorporation of environmental aspects. In view of the budgetary commitments and the length of the new programming period, the Commission preferred to concentrate on the adoption of programmes which fully conformed with the new Regulation and the Community policy guidelines.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 364 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3682/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 November 2000)

Subject: Amounts allotted under and outturn of the Structural Funds in Objective 1 regions

1. Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted under the ERDF to each of the EU’s Objective 1 regions during the 1994-1999 programming period?

Can it say what was the outturn of those amounts in each Objective 1 region during the 1994-1999 programming period?

2. Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted under the FIFG to each of the EU’s Objective 1 regions during the 1994-1999 programming period?

Can it say what was the outturn of those amounts in each Objective 1 region during the 1994-1999 programming period? C 364 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2001)

The amounts allotted to the Objective 1 regions from the European Regional Development Fund over the 1994-1999 programming period can be found by clicking on ‘What does Europe do for your country?’ under ‘Overview’ on site www.inforegio.cec.eu.int.

The outturn in terms of commitment is 100 %, all programmes being entirely committed in accordance with the programming. In terms of payments, however, the outturn will only be known after the programmes have been wound up, commencing in June 2001.

The corresponding figures for the financial instrument for fisheries guidance can be found by clicking on ‘Structural interventions for fisheries in Europe’ under ‘Publications’ on site europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries. The outturn in terms of commitment is 100 % once more.

(2001/C 364 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3938/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Number of votes under QMV

1. Will the Council give the figures in each year for the last five years for the number of votes or decisions concerning legislation or other decisions which would, if voted upon, be subject to qualified majority voting?

2. What proportion of all decisions are now taken by QMV?

3. What proportion of legislative decisions are taken by QMV?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council is not in possession of the figures for each of the last five years for the number of votes or decisions concerning legislation or other decisions which would, if voted upon, be subject to qualified majority voting.

Statistics were produced for 1999, but only on the number of legislative acts. Those statistics show that 67 out of the 199 legislative acts adopted by the Council in 1999 had a legal basis requiring adoption by unanimity. The remaining 132 acts adopted during that year had a legal basis enabling them to be adopted by a qualified majority, which represents a proportion of 66,3 %.

Of those 132 legislative acts:

 104 were adopted without votes against or abstentions;

 28 were adopted with votes against or abstentions.

104 of those 132 legislative acts were adopted unopposed. This means that 67 + 104 = 171 out of a total of 199 legislative acts were in fact adopted unopposed, which is about 85 %.

In this respect it should be remembered that qualified majority voting may in practice make it easier to obtain all delegations’ agreement to a text, inasmuch as delegations which do not agree may be inclined to vote in favour once they know they are going to be in a minority. It also strengthens the Commission’s power of amendment and may in addition favour the adoption of a different text from the one which would have been approved if the legal basis had required unanimity. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/5

As from January 2001 the monthly summaries of Council acts include references to the voting procedure followed for the adoption of the acts by the Council (unanimity, qualified or simple majority). These monthly overviews are published on the Council’s website (http://ue.eu.int, under ‘Transparency’ and ‘Summary of Council acts’).

(2001/C 364 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION P-4069/00 by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Increase in Telecom subscription rate

According to Italian press reports, the European Commissioner responsible for competition, Mario Monti, has asked the Italian telecommunications watchdog body (Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni italiane) to increase the Telecom annual subscription rate for fixed telephony by at least 6 %, excluding VAT and inflation.

This subscription generates a total income of around ITL 7 700 billion for Telecom Italia each year. It would appear, on the basis of comparable purchasing power, to be the highest in Europe. However, with the switch from a concessionary to a licensing system, the telephone subscription rate should, with a view to guarding against distortions of competition, gradually fall rather than rise until it only covers the actual cost of maintaining the fixed network.

The problem is that the investigations aimed at establishing the ‘access deficit’ were conducted by a former Ministry of Communications director, who had moved on to the watchdog body and was then recruited by Telecom Italia.

In response to the Commissioner’s request, two Italian consumer organisations  Adusbef and Codacons  have submitted to the competent authorities a complaint questioning Mr Monti’s right to impose such an increase on an independent authority and asking whether his role should not be limited to making representations to national governments.

In the light of the above, it would seem necessary to establish whether any member of the Commissioner’s office may be in a position of conflict of interest with respect to the request to the watchdog body to increase the subscription rate.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

Acting on a proposal by the Member of the Commission who was responsible for competition at the time, the Commission decided in 1998 to initiate infringement proceedings against Italy, because that country had not authorised Telecom Italia to rebalance its telephone tariffs. Article 4c of Directive 90/388/EEC, as amended, provides that before the liberalisation of the market on 1 January 1998 the Member States must allow telephone tariffs to be aligned on real costs. The purpose of this is to stop prices being held below costs in some markets, which would deter investments by new entrants into these markets.

During September and October 2000, experts from the Italian telecommunications watchdog body (AGCOM) and the Commission agreed on the cost of the service providing access of Telecom Italia. This made it possible to calculate the necessary increase in the annual subscription rate in order to enable Telecom Italia to generate sufficient revenue to cover the cost of this service. The purpose of the Commission’s action in relation to AGCOM was solely to remind it that if it did not permit such an increase, the Commission would have no alternative but to refer the matter to the Court of Justice to find that the Directive was being infringed. The Commission was obliged to refer the matter to the Court of Justice if, after more than two years of proceedings, AGCOM still did not allow Telecom Italia to align its annual subscription rate on the real cost. Since the Directive refers to alignment on the real costs of the services concerned, it is not legitimate to make an international comparison. C 364 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Telecom Italia was not involved in the process of calculating the cost of the access service, except to provide the required accounting data or details on the accounting methodology used. As regards the Italian former senior official mentioned by the Honourable Member, who is currently working within Telecom Italia, this is a purely internal Italian matter on which the Commission cannot comment.

The Commission has received a letter from consumers’ associations, questioning the relevance and legitimacy of its action with regard to the rebalancing of tariffs. It has replied to this letter, which seemed to be based on misunderstandings, by explaining the grounds for its action. The Commission does not call into question the ‘price cap’ principle introduced by AGCOM. Consequently, if Telecom Italia increases its annual subscription rate, it will have to reduce other prices to remain below the ceiling set for 2001 and 2002. For the average consumer, this operation will involve no extra cost. Lastly the Commission has not imposed an increase in the annual subscription rate, let alone fixed its amount, and has merely set out the legal constraints to which it was itself subject.

Lastly, no member of the office of the Commissioner responsible for Competition has a conflict of interests.

(2001/C 364 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0040/01 by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia

I am informed that the European Commission has addressed a number of issues involving the death penalty in Saudi Arabia and the execution of young people under the age of 18 years.

I understand that these matters have been raised with the Gulf Cooperation Council.

What representations has the European Commission made to the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Government of Saudi Arabia or any other bodies, when did it do so, and what was the outcome?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission is concerned about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia including the extensive use of the death penalty. However, there is no specific agreement with Saudi Arabia, which would allow a direct exchange of views and dialogue on these issues with the Saudi government.

A regular political dialogue has been established within the context of the Cooperation Agreement between the Community and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, which includes the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait.

In this dialogue, human rights is an important part of the agenda. In the last two years, the situation in Saudi Arabia and in the other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries has been discussed extensively at the yearly senior officials and Ministerial meetings between the Union and the GCC. This development follows the increased interest in the human rights situation in the region by the EU, which was also expressed at the last two annual meetings of the United Nations Commission on human rights, where the Union raised the situation in Saudi Arabia, including the issue of the death penalty. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/7

(2001/C 364 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0345/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: Interference by food distribution companies in political processes

The extraordinary interference by the Swiss food chain Migros in the social developments taking place in the fruit and vegetable-producing region of Almeria, Spain, has provoked a strong negative reaction on the part of local businesses, which have received letters from the well-known Swiss firm threatening to break off business relations unless conditions for immigrants are improved.

Such an unexpected response from a commercial firm to a debate which has already been resolved in the farming region of Almeria, after a number of incidents linked to the assimilation of a particular group of immigrants, risks setting a highly dangerous precedent for interference by commercial companies in certain social and political conflicts which may arise in any of the Community’s farming regions.

Does the Commission believe that it should take up a position with a view to preventing interference such as that seen in the case of Migros, which has been acting under the influence of the European Civic Forum, an organisation which seeks to favour the farming interests of the countries of eastern Europe?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

It is clearly not for the Commission to interfere in the commercial decisions of private firms.

Such firms are of course free to apply social, environmental or other ‘ethical’ considerations to their commercial decisions, including purchasing policy. Indeed, best business practice in this domain is explicitly encouraged by the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises, which were reviewed last year, and endorsed by all OECD Members at Ministerial level. The Commission fully supports the promotion of these Guidelines as a means of promoting corporate citizenship.

The Honourable Member will also recall that the institutions are committed to ensuring the fair treatment  economically, socially and culturally  of all third country nationals who reside legally on the territory of Member States, as stated in the Conclusions of the Tampere European Council (October 1999).

(2001/C 364 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0410/01 by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Ban on certification markings from private service undertakings

The so-called ‘Blue Guide’ states, in explanation of the ban on third-party certification markings, that voluntary markings must not as a general rule relate to aspects that already fall within the scope of the CE marking.

Is the Commission aware that the effect of this blanket ban on third-party markings in areas to which the CE marking applies is to turn the relationship between rules and exceptions established in the texts of directives as regards authorisations and prohibitions into its opposite, and to jeopardise the survival of European third-party certification agencies?

How can the Commission justify using a non-legally binding document (Blue Guide), on which the European Parliament has had no say, to intervene against existing market structures with such far-reaching consequences? C 364 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The CE marking is a mandatory conformity marking which must be affixed on products covered by New Approach and Global Approach Directives before they are placed on the market and/or put into service. The CE marking signifies that products conforms with the provisions of all relevant Directives. Furthermore the CE marking is the only marking which can be affixed on a product in order to signify compliance with all relevant Community Directives.

The affixing of additional marks is allowed to the extent that such marks do not create confusion referring to the meaning or the form of the CE marking, and that they do not reduce the legibility and visibility of the CE marking.

This is explained in more depth in the ‘Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and Global Approach’ (1). In this Guide, in section 7.4 ‘CE marking and other marks’ it is stated that ‘In view of the objectives of technical harmonisation, markings and marks additional to the CE marking need to fulfil a different function from that of the CE marking. Thus they should provide an added value in signifying conformity with objectives that are different from those to which the CE marking relates’.

The guide was prepared by the services of the Commission in order to increase, facilitate the understanding and the ‘new approach directives’.

The Guide has in addition not introduced a blanket ban on third-party markings. Concerning the status of the Guide, it cannot replace a legal text or change what the legislator has decided, but it can draw out the meaning, significance and practical consequences of the directives to which it refers.

(1) Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, reference C-22-99-014-EN-C.

(2001/C 364 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0448/01 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Traffic accidents involving children

What measures, both indicative and binding, does the Commission intend to take in response to the alarming report by the United Nations Children’s Fund that 8 000 children in the industrialised world are killed and many more injured in traffic accidents every year?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

Each year around 1 000 children under the age of ten are killed in road accidents. Whether they are passengers in vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists, children can never be blamed for road accidents. They are thus a group requiring special protection.

In the short term, the Institutions are examining two measures designed to give children greater protection. These are a proposal to make it compulsory to use child restraints in vehicles (1) and work to provide greater protection for vulnerable road users in the event of collision with a car (2).

The Commission is also envisaging new measures in the Road Safety Action Programme for 2002 to 2010 it will be sending to the Council and Parliament this year. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/9

It may be assumed, lastly, that all road safety measures, whether general or specific, serve to provide children with greater protection.

(1) OJ C 96, 27.3.2001. (2) COM(2001) 389 final.

(2001/C 364 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0474/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Freshwater fishing in Ireland: ongoing disturbance of the natural balance in the Western Lakes Region

1. Can the Commission confirm that, in the Western Lakes System in Ireland  which consists of Lough Corrib in County Galway and Lough Mask and Lough Carra in County Mayo and the associated rivers in the western region, together with Lough Arrow in County Sligo in north-west Ireland  the number of trout and salmon has declined sharply over the past 20 years or so?

2. Can the Commission also confirm that that decline in numbers is a consequence of the canalisation of natural watercourses and of the reclamation and draining of areas in the direct vicinity of the lakes and the associated river systems, with the result that there is now less space for fish swimming up rapidly flowing streams?

3. To what extent is the continuing decline in trout numbers also a consequence of pollution by phosphates of agricultural and domestic origin, of overgrazing by sheep on neighbouring hills, of acidification as a result of the planting of conifers on slopes which drain into the lakes region, of erosion and as a result of encroachment on spawning grounds in rivers and of the fact that many game anglers, contrary to international custom, do not throw back the fish they catch but kill and eat them?

4. In the period since European subsidies began to be granted in 1996, what has been done to improve water quality and restore spawning grounds with a view to protecting trout stocks in the lakes referred to in point 1?

5. Is the Commission aware that European subsidies have been used for the deployment of gillnets, the main objective of which is to catch pike between February and the end of April in the shallow spawning grounds where they gather to breed?

6. Can the Commission confirm that trout, perch, whitefish, otters, diving waterfowl and other animals living in, on and near to the lakes also get caught up in these gillnets and that some of them die a painful death after vainly struggling for hours to free themselves?

7. Is such use of gillnets, which upset the balance of nature, compatible with the status of specially protected area under the Wild Birds Directive?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

1. According to the information received from the WRFB, the stock surveys of Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra in 1996 indicated to different degrees that the wild brown trout stock was not optimal and that pike (an introduced species) stocks particularly in Lough Corrib were very significant. The scientific advice was that several measures were needed to ensure that stocks improve. These were as follows: to repair feeder and nursery streams and their habitat; to control and eliminate pollution sources; to reduce the stock of predatory non-indigenous species. Salmon stocks are subjected to different pressures in the marine environment.

As indicated by the NWRFB, insofar as Lough Arrow is concerned, a fish stock survey carried out in 1994 revealed a 50 % reduction in stocks of wild trout compared with similar surveys in 1979-1980. C 364 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

2. As per the WRFB, the canalisation of rivers and streams reduced fish numbers in feeder streams. This aspect of engineering works was a target of the development programme and considerable work has ensured that previously drained channels are now producing considerable numbers of trout and salmon fry and parr. There is ample space for trout and fast flowing water is necessary for salmon parr production.

According to the NWRFB, in the case of Lough Arrow, the decline was not attributed to canalisation of natural watercourses and the reclamation and draining of areas in the direct vicinity of the lakes and associated rivers systems. The decline was attributed to increased pike stocks and poor quality habitat in many of the inflowing streams. The development project set out to address the habitat problem. The increasing of pike control activities was not funded under Community programme.

3. The WRFB maintains that the decline in trout numbers has been reversed by the development works undertaken under the programme. Overgrazing and afforestation can put additional pressures on a salmonid catchment, the overall plan addresses these aspects as well as the issue of the predatory fish species in the lakes. The fact that anglers, many of them local people, have always fished for trout on these lakes is part of the cultural heritage of the West of Ireland. These people have always caught and eaten the fish as part of their diet. In addition the Fisheries Board in question is actively promoting catch and release of trout by anglers.

According to the NWRFB, with the exception of overgrazing by sheep, all of the factors outlined may have contributed to the reduced trout stocks on Lough Arrow.

Agri-environment measures in the rural development plans aim to encourage farmers to respect good farming practices, to remunerate them when they go beyond these practices and to reduce the pollution, mainly in nitrates. They also include actions to reduce density of animals.

4. According to the information provided by the WRFB, in any areas where water quality problems have been identified, remedial measures are being actively pursued. The development plan 1996-1999 was focused on stream development and the vast majority of the funding was invested in maximising trout production. Spawning and nursery grounds were restored where necessary and the result has achieved its objective with enormous increases in juvenile trout numbers in developed stretches of rivers. This is supported by a vast amount of scientific information gathered, both before development, and after development on fish stock numbers and compared against the necessary controls, etc.

The operational programme for tourism was aimed at restoring spawning grounds with a view to protecting trout stocks in Lough Arrow. Responsibility for water quality in the lake rests primarily with Sligo and Roscommon County Councils and with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Fisheries Board has only very limited powers in relation to water quality issues. For example, it may bring prosecutions in respect of specific offences but it has virtually no powers in regard to preventive measures. The Board does, however, carry out pollution inspections on a regular basis in the Lough Arrow catchment with view to identifying specific problems and these are dealt with as appropriate. A much wider programme, involving the local authorities, EPA, farming community etc. is desirable and should be spearheaded by the local authorities.

5. As indicated by the WRFB, the introduced pike species must be controlled as has been clearly demonstrated by the scientific advisors to the programme. Pike are caught and removed and where possible transferred alive to non-salmonid waters by different methods including drum nets, gill nets and electro-fishing. Insofar as Lough Arrow is concerned, Community subsidies have not been used for the deployment of gill nets for the catching of pike.

6. As stated by the WRFB, the gill nets are designed to catch pike and perch, the careful placing of the nets ensures that any by-catch is minimised. Other animals would only rarely be caught. The timing of placement and the locations used are designed to minimise the possibility of catching anything other than 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/11

the target species. The number of wild foul caught is minuscule, even compared to the number of wild foul taken by the pike alone. As stated above, Community subsided gill nets are not used on Lough Arrow.

7. According to the WRFB, the balance of nature in Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra was upset by the introduction of pike. Current efforts are to try and maintain the indigenous species in these lakes. These lakes are of enormous importance as one of the last refugees of fast growing wild brown trout in alkaline waters and need to be maintained as salmonid waters. This is also the desire of the vast majority of Irish people who have lived and grown up in this area and for whom the lake, and wild brown trout in particular, is part of their heritage.

In the NWRFB’s view the use of gill nets does not upset the balance of nature. Gill nets are used to control pike that are not a native species. They are removed by gill nets because they prey on trout, which are a native species.

(2001/C 364 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0512/01 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Comparability of social statistics between the European Union and the USA

When the Commission publishes studies on the level of the total tax or social security burden in the various Member States and the USA, the comparisons  generally expressed as a percentage of GDP  consistently show the levels to be higher in Europe than in the USA.

However, given the appreciable differences in welfare cover between Europe and the USA, are such comparisons relevant? Apart from the public programmes (such as Medicare and Medicaid), social security in the USA remains largely in the private sphere, or is based on corporate schemes. Millions of Americans of working age have no sickness insurance and do not contribute to a pension fund. Is the Commission able to put an approximate figure to the American social welfare deficit? Would it not help improve the comparability of welfare spending figures on both sides of the Atlantic if non-compulsory, private social expenditure in the USA were taken into account and, in particular, if an assessment were made of the shortfall in social security contributions by the Americans?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2001)

The Commission has addressed the issue of net expenditure on social protection in its 1997 and 1999 Reports on Social Protection in Europe on the basis of the study conducted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to estimate ‘net social expenditure’ (1). The 1999 Report on Social Protection in Europe states that (page 70) ‘these estimations tend to be country-specific and so there is a question about their comparability across the Union’. The estimates published in the report refer to some Member States.

The OECD study contains these estimates for the United States too. The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat a table with these data, which show that, using OECD terminology, the overall level of ‘gross public social expenditure’ is lower in the United States than in the Member States for which data are available, while, on the other hand, ‘net total social expenditure’ is quite similar in the United States and the Member States. The main difference is that public schemes play a more important role in the Community whilst in the United States private provision plays an important C 364 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

role. This difference is necessarily reflected in comparisons of the level of taxes and social contributions (paid also on social benefits) to finance mandatory public schemes because these data do not take into account ‘purely private’ expenditure by households.

On the other hand, the Commission is not in a position to assess the situation in the United States in terms of coverage of population or needs.

Data on social protection expenditure (on the basis of gross or net data) are not sufficient to assess the efficiency of social protection systems because they lack information on the percentage of population covered, on the level of benefits paid to individuals, on the redistributive effects and on the real situation of individuals in terms of their health condition.

(1) See for example Willem Adema, Net Social Expenditure, Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers, No 39, OECD, 1999.

(2001/C 364 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0608/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Responsibility of national or local government for supervising animal protection

An official government report (‘Better animal protection’, SOU 2000:108) published in Sweden in December 2000 states that the Swedish model, whereby animal protection is under the supervision at local level of the local authorities, does not meet the requirements of EU Directive 90/425/EEC (1). The author of the report maintains that, owing to EU requirements, the task of supervision must be removed from the local authorities and proposes that responsibility should pass to the government.

The assertion that the Swedish model does not meet EU requirements has been met with astonishment, not least by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities, which questions the report’s claim. The Swedish Government, however, has been pressing for a number of years to take over responsibility for local supervision from the local authorities. Their own parliamentary group, however, is opposed, which has meant that the government has been unable to put forward proposals. It is suspected, therefore, that it is the government’s own political ambitions which lie behind the report’s conclusion rather than the EU directive.

Does the Commission consider that the Swedish model, under which the local authorities are responsible for local supervision, is contrary to any current EU directive?

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the report mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Article 2 of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internat market, provides the following definition of competent authorities:

competent authority shall mean the central authority of a Member State competent to carry out veterinary or zootechnical checks or any authority to which it has delegated that competence. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/13

The Directive does not provide or ban any particular model of organisation to implement the veterinary legislation within the Member States, as it opens the possibility to the central authority to delegate its competence.

However, it should be recalled that according to the general principles of Community law it is for the Member States to ensure that Community legislation is implemented within their territory. Insofar as Community law does not include common rules to this effect, the national authorities when implementing legislation act in accordance with their own national law. However, this rule must be reconciled with the need to apply Community law uniformly (1).

(1) Court of Justice in Case 205-215/82 (Milchkontor), [1983] E.C.R. 2 633.

(2001/C 364 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0643/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: CAP reform and the EU budget

A consequence of the BSE crisis (the culmination of a series of events which have challenged the EU agriculture policy’s emphasis on production) is that the decisions taken by the Commission and the larger Member States regarding the need to reform the CAP make it necessary to consider in addition the need for a consistent and thorough-going reform of the structure of the CAP’s budget, which currently absorbs 45 % of the Community budget. Such a reform cannot wait until the end of the 2000-2006 period corresponding to the Agenda 2000 forecasts. What are the Commission’s plans for a CAP and Community budget reform programme?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

The Commission shares the view expressed by the Honourable Member concerning the serious nature of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)-crisis. The BSE-crisis calls for immediate measures on the beef and feedstuff markets.

These measures should be distinguished from the mid-term review foreseen in the Conclusions of the European Council of Berlin of 25 March 1999. The mid-term review in 2002 will include several sectors (arable crops; milk quota system; wine production potential) and the agricultural budget.

Some further sectors might be added in the light of the analysis of the current crisis and the post-crisis markets for beef and feedstuffs. The structure of postreview budget, however, can not be anticipated before the mid-term review itself.

The Agenda 2000 reform enfolding its economic effects fully not before 2003, the year 2001 will be the year of analysis.

Finally, as to the question to the overall agricultural budget and its share of the general budget, the figures until the year 2006 are laid down in the Conclusions of the European Council of Berlin of 25 March 1999. The overall budget for common agricultural policy (CAP) will progressively decrease from the year 2003 on. C 364 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0692/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Operation of projects funded by 2nd CSF

The following projects were carried out under the 2nd Community Support framework in the regions of:

(a) Oinofyta: 1. biological treatment of urban waste, 2. biological treatment of waste from industrial plants in the region;

(b) Skhimatarion: 1. biological treatment of urban waste, 2. biological treatment of waste from industrial plants in the region.

According to my information, these installations, particularly those involving the treatment of industrial waste, do not operate owing to the cost involved unless an inspection is imminent.

Will the Commission therefore say how much has been spent on all the above projects? Can it confirm that the above installations operate as they should?

Is it possible for the Commission to carry out spot checks?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

According to information provided by the Greek authorities, there is only one sewage-treatment plant processing urban waste water from the villages of Inofita and Skhimatari. Plants also exist for treating industrial effluents in this region but they were built with private capital and are operated under the responsibility of the firms to which they belong.

The construction of the sewage-treatment plant was originally funded partly by a contribution of GRD 182 million from the Envireg Community Initiative and partly by GRD 85 million from the ‘EAPTA’ sub- programme of the Regional Operational Programme (OP) for Central Greece for 1994-1999. For a time construction was abandoned. Then, following representations by the Commission, the Greek authorities completed the plant with the help of an additional contribution of GRD 641 million under the ‘Environment’ OP for 1994-1999.

The plant is not linked to a network of sewers but acts as an unloading point for tankers emptying septic tanks. Its average capacity is approximately 1 500 cubic metres a day, or around 100 tankers. It also has a storage basin for the collection and treatment (neutralisation and drying) of non-toxic industrial sludge from treatment plants at factories nearby.

Ensuring that municipal waste-water treatment plants function properly is the responsibility of the national authorities, who must also submit periodical reports on the subject to the Commission. The Commission does not have the power to conduct checks of the sort proposed by the Honourable Member.

Interruptions in the operation of such plants would constitute breaches of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1).

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/15

(2001/C 364 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0698/01 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Physical Agents Directive

Could the Commission confirm whether it does intend to introduce the Physical Agents Directive?

Would the Commission agree that introducing this directive would place unreasonable requirements on farm workers if new limits were placed on vehicle use on farms on health and safety grounds?

(2001/C 364 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0968/01 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Restricted use of farm vehicles

Can the Commission confirm that the proposed Physical Agents Directive will restrict vehicle use on farms to as little as two or three hours a day?

Does the Commission agree that these proposals are impractical for the majority of farmers?

Does the Commission also agree that these proposals do not take into account the realities of agriculture, in particular at harvest time, and also the difference in size of different farm holdings and therefore differing needs with regards to farm vehicles and the lengths of time for which they are used?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/01 and E-0968/01 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

The Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents in December 1992 (1). Further to the opinions of the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, the Commission submitted an amended proposal in July 1994 (2).

The main characteristic of the proposal had been to provide a general framework for all categories of physical agents in order to establish a clear and coherent prevention strategy capable of protecting the health and safety of workers exposed to these agents.

The proposal deals with those physical agents for which there is sufficient scientific evidence for Community action  noise (risks to hearing); vibrations (risks to the hand, arm and whole body); electromagnetic fields and optical radiation (risks to health from induced currents in the body, shock and burn hazards and from absorption of thermal energy).

The Commission’s proposal does not limit the use of vehicles on farms nor does it specify emission limit values for machines.

In addition, the socio-economic impact study made by the Commission at the time of proposal does not show any unreasonable burden imposed on farmers when applying the prevention measures specified.

(1) OJ C 77, 18.3.1993. (2) COM(94) 284 final. C 364 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0789/01 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Bullfighting: BSE risk due to failure to comply with Decision 00/418/EC

The Community subsidises the breeding of fighting bulls in the context of the 1987 Regulation on premiums for bulls. The bulls are butchered in the arena in unhygienic conditions, immediately after the fight, and are then sold for consumption. Instruments are used repeatedly both during and after the fight resulting in injuries which can cause BSE-infected nerve tissue to spread throughout the animal’s body.

The use of these instruments has been prohibited since 31.12.2000 and the meat cannot be sold (Decision 00/418/EC (1)). The use of these instruments also contravenes Directive 93/119/EC (2), which declares that animals are to be spared unnecessary pain and suffering during slaughtering or killing. As long as the aforementioned instruments are used and the meat is sold, or not correctly disposed of the resultant risk of BSE infection cannot be ruled out. Spain does not currently have a sufficient number of rendering plants, which has led to the storage of large amounts of unsaleable (mechanically deboned) remains of fighting bull meat in cold-storage depots in Andalusia, for example. It is still unclear how the meat is being disposed of. (El Mundo of 11 and 14 November 2000, ABC of 16 November 2000).

1. What is being done to ensure that Decision 00/418/EC is complied with in the context of bullfighting?

2. What is being done to protect consumers from sales of potentially BSE-contaminated fighting bull meat?

3. Is the Commission aware that many of the bulls are drugged with phenylbutazone which, if consumed, causes serious damage to consumers’ health? What is the Commission planning to do about this?

(1) OJ L 158, 30.6.2000, p. 76. (2) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

Protection of consumer health is one of the prime objectives of the Commission. Any potential health risk relating to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is taken extremely seriously. To this end, a comprehensive series of Community measures has been put in place. These measures, including those established by Commission Decision 2000/418/EC of 29 June 2000 regulating the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Decision 94/474/EC, also apply to fighting bulls, if the meat of those animals is intended for human consumption. Member States are responsible for its implementation and enforcement. This is then audited by the Food and Veterinary Office. Furthermore, according to the information available to the Commission, the specific methods currently used to kill bulls during bullfights (the ‘descabello’ or the ‘puntilla’) are not considered to increase the risks to the consumers and are thus not prohibited. The Commission is however continuing to follow the situation closely and will review the legislation if new scientific evidence becomes available.

As already stated, all BSE related measures taken at Community level to protect the consumer also apply to fighting bulls. In particular, bulls over 30 months of age killed during the fight and whose meat is destined for human consumption should be tested for BSE.

Community legislation concerning hygiene of fresh meat establishes that the official veterinarian should perform an analysis for residues if there is a suspicion at the time of the inspection. Fresh meat with residue levels above the permitted thresholds should be declared unfit for human consumption. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/17

In addition, the compulsory monitoring plan carried out annually by the Member States should be targeted to animals and active substances of special concern. This should include the use of non-steroidian anti- inflammatory substances referred to by the Honourable Member. The Commission is not aware that many of the fighting bulls are drugged with phenylbutazone and would like to receive appropriate evidence in order to decide on proper follow-up.

Finally, the Commission would like to emphasise that, within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), there is no special subsidy designed to support the breeding of bulls for fighting. However, Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1) destined to support the beef production does not exclude specifically those bulls which later appear as being used in bullfights. Livestock farmers decide if and which of their animals (generally a small number of their bulls) will be used for fighting purposes only when the animals are adult. Therefore, at the normal age for applying for the beef premium, the fact that an animal will be used for fighting is unknown.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 364 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0854/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Taxation levels

Does the Commission believe that any Member State has such a high general level of taxation that a tax cut might increase revenue through incentive effects?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Although there is a theoretical possibility that high tax rates result in lower tax revenues and, that, therefore, a lowering of tax rates leads to increased fiscal revenues, there are no clear indications about the level tax rates have to reach in order to produce so-called Laffer-type effects (1).

In the joint report on ‘The Contribution of Public Finances to Growth and Employment. Improving Quality and Sustainability’, which was submitted to the European Council of Stockholm, the Commission and the Council, on the basis of the accumulated experience, affirmed that tax cuts are not fully self-financing, and need to be accompanied with spending reforms. The report considers that the necessary amount of expenditure reductions has to be gauged by the starting budgetary and cyclical economic position, while an appropriate balance also has to be drawn between cutting taxes and running down government debt and/or improving the long-term sustainability of public finances. In addition, the effects of tax reforms also depend on the degree to which tax cuts target supply side rigidities. In particular, where ‘incentive’ effects are concerned, tax cuts targeted to highly distortionary taxes, such as those on labour, especially at the lower end of the wage scale, may lead to positive effects on investment, employment and growth in the long run, which may result in higher tax revenues, partially offsetting the negative effects of cutting rates.

(1) Laffer-type effects refer to the possibility that a cut in tax rates could lead to an increase (instead of, as expected, to a reduction) of tax revenues. However, in the real world, against what was suggested by Laffer, tax cuts are not self- financing. Other things equal, tax cuts lead to a reduction in tax revenues. C 364 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0865/01

by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Opportunity afforded by enlargement for alternative energy production and job creation

Enlargement eastwards is expected to produce a sharp rise in productivity in agriculture in the applicant countries. Large areas of land will probably not be needed for food production. A large number of farmers run the risk of unemployment. A constructive method of utilising abandoned farmland would be to grow energy crops, which would create new jobs, reduce the applicant countries’ dependence on oil imports and cut carbon dioxide emissions.

What measures does the Commission plan to take to exploit the great potential for alternative energy production, and thereby job opportunities, in many of the applicant countries in conjunction with the modernisation of their agriculture to EU standards? Are there any obstacles to prevent such a development in this context and, if so, how does the Commission intend to eliminate those obstacles?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Productivity in the candidate countries over the coming years is expected to grow at a slow but constant rate. Application of the Common Agricultural Policy is likely to strengthen this process, particularly where the Community’s prices are above those of the candidate countries. Under these conditions, in the Commission’s view, land abandonment is unlikely. It should be emphasised that the conditions under which the common agricultural policy (CAP) will be applied to the candidate countries are uncertain until the negotiation of the agricultural chapter with the candidate countries will have been concluded. Nevertheless, increased use of renewable energy sources, as in the current Community, would clearly be a desirable objective for the candidate countries provided it is consistent with the Acquis.

Special accession programme for agriculture and rural development (Sapard) under existing legislation may provide aid for investment in support of renewable energy in the pre-accession phase. On accession rural development programmes could be used to enhance production techniques and develop marketing and processing capacity in conjunction with the modernisation of the candidate countries’ agriculture and rural economy.

One obstacle to the further development of alternative energy sources is the low cost of conventional energy sources. This is due in part to higher technological costs for renewable sources. It is also due to the fact that conventional energy sources do not include their environmental costs in their price. These are borne by society as a whole and not just users. The Commission is currently promoting the development of more competitive renewable energy sources through programmes such as the 6th Research and technological development (RTD) framework Programme and Altener. A Commission’s proposal (1)on a Directive concerning the production of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal market is currently under discussion in the Parliament and the Council. It is also currently preparing a draft directive covering taxation measures and targets for biofuels. Both should help to address obstacles to further development. These and any future initiatives will apply fully to the candidate countries after accession and could form the basis for technical cooperation in the pre-accession period.

(1) OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/19

(2001/C 364 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0884/01 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (27 March 2001)

Subject: Radiological sampling at military ranges where depleted uranium munitions have been tested

What plans does the Commission have, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter III of the Euratom Treaty, to conduct radiological sampling at military ranges or other sites in the UK and France where depleted uranium munitions have been tested?

(2001/C 364 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0979/01 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (30 March 2001)

Subject: Test firing of depleted uranium shells

Does the Commission consider that the test firing of depleted uranium shells into coastal waters within the European Union is covered by the OSPAR Convention?

(2001/C 364 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/01 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (30 March 2001)

Subject: Surveys of environmental radioactivity

What surveys of environmental radioactivity are currently being conducted by the Commission or its agents?

(2001/C 364 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0981/01 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (30 March 2001)

Subject: Firing of depleted uranium shells into the Solway Firth, United Kingdom

What evaluation has the Commission made of the environmental survey conducted by consultants W.S. Atkins on behalf of the British Ministry of Defence in 1994, released in January 1995, into the impact on the marine and terrestrial environment of the test-firing of depleted uranium shells in the United Kingdom into the Solway Firth (from the Dundrennan range near Kirkcudbright, in Scotland) and at Eskmeals (Cumbria, in England)? Is it aware of any similar survey conducted by France into its depleted uranium testing site at Granat?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0884/01, E-0979/01, E-0980/01 and E-0981/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (5 June 2001)

Test ranges of depleted uranium munitions may be either terrestrial or in a marine environment.

In the case of marine test ranges, the Commission stated on several occasions  most recently in its reply to Oral Question H-0055/01 by Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou during question time at Parliament’s February 2001 part-session (1)  that no contamination of the marine environment which could be distinguished from naturally occurring uranium concentrations would result from this activity. It is the Commission’s understanding that this issue has so far not been addressed under the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention. C 364 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

As far as terrestrial test ranges are concerned, under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty the Commission has a right of access to the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the air, water and soil, hence in the environment, for verification purposes. The Commission has thus no access to nuclear or military sites as such, and the Commission would request access only in so far as on-site monitoring facilities are necessary for the assessment of the impact on the environment beyond the site perimeter.

The Commission maintains a watching brief on the situation with regard to levels of radioactivity in the environment on the basis of the information received under Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty, site specific data provided by Member States authorities, and other sources of information brought to the Commission’s attention. The Commission was not aware of the British study with regard to the Solway Firth, nor of a similar study conducted by France.

On the basis of the existing Community legislation, mechanisms ensuring monitoring of radioactivity in the environment already exist. The implementation of such provisions does not highlight a particular need for these to be augmented by the Commission conducting environmental sampling for depleted uranium.

(1) Oral reply of 13.2.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0891/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Subsidies for the Sensus police project

In reply to Question P-0009/01 (1), Commissioner Erkki Liikanen said that the Commission was aware that the AfA (Amt für Auslandsfragen), which was involved in both Aventinus and Sensus via its test centre for language technology, was a government body reporting to the office of the German Federal Chancellor. Mr Liikanen thereby implicitly acknowledges that the Commission was ‘aware of the involvement of the German federal security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst’.

To avoid any misunderstanding about the involvement of the German federal security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, with Aventinus and Sensus, I should like to know: does the Commission acknowledge, explicitly and unambiguously, that it was aware of the involvement of the German federal security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission services were aware at the time of the signature of the Sensus contract, that the Amt für Auslandsfragen (AfA) was a test centre for language technology, a public body reporting to the German federal chancellery. They were not informed of any relationship between AfA and the Bundesnachrich- tendienst (BND) until towards the end of the project. In any case, there was no legal impediment to the participation of AfA, or indeed the BND, in the Sensus project. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/21

(2001/C 364 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0893/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Subsidies for the Sensus police project

In reply to Question P-0009/01 (1) the Commission stated that it would study the information brought to its attention and assess whether it needed to reconsider its position, which might involve a financial audit being carried out in accordance with the provisions of the contract. The information to which Commissioner Erkki Liikanen refers relates to the Sensus/Lernout & Hauspie/Bundesnachrichtendienst case referred to in Question P-0009/01.

Given the serious nature of this issue, and the Commission’s close involvement, will the Commission arrange for a financial audit to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the contract? If not, why does the Commission refuse a financial audit of Sensus/Lernout & Hauspie/Bundesnachrichtendienst?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The need for a financial audit can reasonably be assessed only after the Commission has received all the cost statements covering the entire duration of the project.

According to the Commission services, all project financial records and cost claims received to date appear reasonable and within the budget foreseen in the contract.

Nevertheless, should inconsistencies appear in the incoming cost statements, in particular in the light of information brought to the attention of the Commission, the Commission may initiate a financial audit on some or all of the participants of the Sensus project, in accordance with the provisions of the contract. Directorate General Information Society has already initiated an internal review of the management of the Sensus project at the request of the Member of the Commission responsible for Enterprises and Information Society.

(2001/C 364 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0894/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Subsidies for the Sensus police project

In reply to Question P-009/01 (1), Commissioner Erkki Liikanen said that the Commission was aware that the AfA (Amt für Auslandsfragen), which had been involved in both Aventinus and Sensus via its test centre for language technology, was a government body reporting to the office of the German Federal Chancellor. This is an implicit acknowledgement that the Commission is aware of the involvement of the German federal security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst.

Since the police and security services, including the Bundesnachrichtendienst, are the responsibility of the EU Member States, they can always invoke national sovereignty as a means of evading any democratic accountability at European level. To a certain extent, therefore, the Commission has given carte blanche to Europol and, in particular, the German federal security service.

Does the Commission acknowledge that the European Parliament is not able to exercise any democratic control over the activities of the police and security services, including the Bundesnachrichtendienst and Europol, in the context of the Sensus project since they come under the responsibility of the EU Member States? If not, in what way can the European Parliament exercise to the full its democratic right of control C 364 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

of the police and security services, including the Bundesnachrichtendienst and Europol, in the context of the Sensus project, without running up against the limits of national sovereignty?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the question asked refers to an institutional matter since it concerns the democratic control of the Parliament over activitites which are included in the field of the competence of the Member States. This matter is beyond the Sensus project and, in general, the framework Research and Technological Development (RDT) Programmes.

In the context of the Sensus project, however, AfA and Europol, in signing a contract with the Commission, are subject to the same rights and obligations as the other Sensus project contractors, in particular the requirement to submit cost statements, technical results and reports as well as accepting the right of the Commission and the Court of Auditors to undertake audits.

(2001/C 364 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0895/01 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Veterinary services and laboratories, programmes for eradicating and monitoring animal diseases and spending in the veterinary sector in Greece

During the Year 2000 5 330 head of cattle, 3 500 goats and sheep and 450 pigs were slaughtered in Greece (in the Prefectures of Evros and Xanthi) as a result of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. Furthermore, following checks carried out on the basis of Decisions 90/424/EEC (1) and 94/370/EEC (2)on expenditure in the veterinary field and investigations into veterinary activities in specific sectors and the programme for the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases, the Commission found that the arrangements for combating various diseases in Greece (brucellosis among cattle and goats and sheep, tuberculosis among cattle and scrapie among sheep) did not operate effectively and that the programmes implemented were inadequate both from a veterinary point of view and from the point of view of financial management.

1. To what extent do the veterinary services and laboratories in Greece operate on the basis of existing Community directives and regulations concerning the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases?

2. How well equipped are the other Member States and Greece’s neighbours (Turkey, Bulgaria, etc.) to deal with foot-and-mouth disease, and what measures does it intend to take to tackle this disease effectively?

3. On the basis of Decisions 2000/640/EC (3) and 2000/774/EC (4) on the adoption of certain programmes for the eradication, monitoring and prevention of zoonoses in Greece in 2001, what measures must be taken to avoid losing Community funding, especially since the implementation of the programmes for combating foot-and-mouth disease in Greece cost GRD 2,4 billion in the Year 2000?

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19. (2) OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p. 31. (3) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 56. (4) OJ L 308, 8.12.2000, p. 39. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/23

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2001)

1. Member States shall within the framework of Council Directive 82/894/EEC of 21 December 1982 on the notification of animal diseases within the Community (1) report to the European Commission and other Member States on the appearance of a number of animal diseases which cause losses to animal production and restrictions to trade. Greece has during the period of 1996-2000 reported the occurrence of disease outbreaks as shown below:

Number of disease outbreaks Year Foot-and-mouth disease Blue tongue Sheep pox 1996 39 0 118 1997 0 0 60 1998 0 84 7 1999 0 1 791 0 2000 14 0 1

In relation to missions carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office (see website: http://europa.eu.int/ comm/food/index_en.html) a number of recommendations have been made to the Greek authorities. Greece has undertaken to report to the Commission about their implementations within the next few months.

The measures taken by Greece to control and eradicate foot-and-mouth disease, blue tongue and sheep pox took into account the provisions of Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (2) and of Council Directive 92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing general Community measures for the control of certain animal diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease (3).

2. All Member States have, in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 85/511/EEC, established contingency plans for the control of foot-and-mouth disease.

With regard to the foot-and-mouth disease situation in Bulgaria it should be noted that in 1991 Bulgaria adopted the non-vaccination policy of the EU. The last foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Bulgaria occurred in 1996. The disease was rapidly eradicated and the measures applied were in conformity with the Bulgarian contingency plan.

In recent years outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have been reported from several parts of Turkey. With the aim to assist in combating foot-and-mouth disease in Turkey, the European Commission adopted Decision 98/64/EC of 9 December 1998 on a Community financial contribution for improving the foot- and-mouth disease control programme in Turkey (4). Since then assistance has been provided as regards the supply of foot-and-mouth disease vaccine for use in Turkish Thrace.

3. In 2000 Greece presented a number of animal disease control programmes for Community co- financing. By Commission Decision 2000/640/EC (5) of 13 October 2000 on the list of programmes for the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases and on the list of programmes of checks aimed at the prevention of zoonoses qualifying for a financial contribution from the Community in 2001, it was decided that the following programmes presented by Greece shall qualify for a financial contribution in 2001: bovine brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis, ovine and caprine brucellosis and scrapie. In accordance with Commission Decision 2000/774/EC of 30 November 2000 approving the programmes for the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases and for the prevention of zoonoses presented for the year 2001 by the Member States (6), the financial contribution from the Community shall be granted provided that the actions planned are efficiently carried out and that the authorities supply all the necessary information within the time limits laid down. Furthermore pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 only expenditures undertaken in conformity with Community law shall be eligible for Community financing. To improve animal disease eradication and to avoid losing Community funds during implementation of approved programmes the Commission established a special task force in 2000 within the framework of the White Paper on food safety (7). A sub-group of this task force has already addressed C 364 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

the brucellosis situation in Greece and issued recommendations on this matter. The implementation of the recommendations will be followed within the normal monitoring system.

(1) OJ L 378, 31.12.1982. (2) OJ L 315, 26.11.1985. (3) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993. (4) OJ L 16, 21.1.1998. (5) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000. (6) OJ L 308, 8.12.2000. (7) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2001/C 364 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0896/01 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Programmes for eradicating and monitoring animal diseases and spending in the veterinary sector in Greece

During the year 2000, 5 330 head of cattle, 3 500 goats and sheep and 450 pigs were slaughtered in Greece (in the Prefectures of Evros and Xanthi) as a result of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. Furthermore, following checks carried out on the basis of Decisions 90/424/EEC (1) and 94/370/EEC (2)on expenditure in the veterinary field and investigations into veterinary activities in specific sectors and the programme for the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases, the Commission found that the arrangements for combating various diseases in Greece (brucellosis among cattle and goats and sheep, tuberculosis among cattle and scrapie among sheep) did not operate effectively and that the programmes implemented were inadequate both from a veterinary point of view and from the point of view of financial management.

In the light of existing information, will the Commission say:

 Which irregularities have been found relating to the programmes for the eradication, monitoring and combating of animal diseases and how much money has not been disbursed as part of the Community’s financial contribution to Greece?

 Has Greece submitted to the Commission, on the basis of Directive 90/423/EEC (3) on combating foot- and-mouth disease, a ‘plan of warning’ specifying the national measures to be put into effect immediately in the event of an outbreak of the disease? To what extent are they likely to achieve the desired objective of rapidly and effectively eradicating outbreaks?

 Can it confirm that there have been long delays by the veterinary services and laboratories in Greece and that sanitary taxes over the last five years (GRD 40 billion.) have not been spent on laboratories, research and equipment, as Community legislation requires?

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19. (2) OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p. 31. (3) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

With regard to exposure to diseases Greece is in a special situation because of its borders to third countries which are infected with diseases exotic to the Community. Besides this, the Commission is well aware of the difficulties occurring in Greece with regard to veterinary activities. The Commission therefore supports several Greek veterinary activities  technically and financially  in order to detect and eliminate disease outbreaks as quickly as possible. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/25

As regards the Honourable Member’s questions the Commission answers as follows:

 The programmes for eradication, monitoring and combating of animal diseases are checked by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) and by the financial services of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General. Detailed reports of the FVO’s inspection missions, including a description of the irregularities found, are published on the Internet (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/vi/ reports/greece/index_en.html).

As regards the eradication costs of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks which occurred in Greece in 2000, the Greek authorities introduced in January 2001 a claim of GDR 2,35 billion. These expenditures may be co-financed at 60 % under Article 11 of Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field.

To date no financial decision on the reimbursement of such expenditures has been taken by the Commission because the Greek authorities have postponed the on-the-spot financial control.

 In accordance with the provisions in Article 5 of Council Directive 90/423/EEC of 26 June 1990 amending Directive 85/511/EEC introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease, Directive 64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine and Directive 72/462/EEC on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat or meat products from third countries, Member States must draw up contingency plans for foot-and-mouth disease applying the criteria set up in Commission Decision 91/42/EEC of 8 January 1991 laying down the criteria to be applied when drawing up contingency plans for the control of foot-and-mouth disease, in application of Article 5 of Council Directive 90/423/EEC (1).

By letter of 29 August 1991 Greece submitted its contingency plan, which, after detailed evaluation by the Commission, was approved by Commission Decision 93/455/EEC of 23 July 1993 approving certain contingency plans for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (2).

Since that time Greece eradicated FMD outbreaks in 1994, 1996 and 2000, on the basis of stamping out, movement control and surveillance. During each epidemic the Commission carried out veterinary inspection missions, which did reveal some shortcomings, but more importantly confirmed the successful implementation of control measures to eradicate the disease.

The incursion of FMD in 2000 was detected at an early stage due to movement control measures and surveillance carried out in the framework of the ‘EVROS’ monitoring program for exotic diseases (FMD, blue tongue, sheep pox and pest of small ruminants) set up by the Greek authorities in 1999. This program was for the first time implemented and co-financed by the Commission in 2000.

In September 2000, shortly after the last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and on request of the Commission to all Member States, Greece submitted a revised version of the contingency plan taking account of the experience gained during the past years. This contingency plan, is available for the Food and Veterinary Office to proceed with their inspections of FMD contingency plans in all Member States. A final report of these inspection missions will be available in accordance with Commission procedures when the evaluation of the contingency plans of all Member States is completed.

 The results of the inspection missions of the FVO indicate that the main problems in Greece as regards animal disease eradication, monitoring and control programmes are the inadequate staff cover, the limited resources available to the local veterinary services and to laboratories and the low number of operating local veterinary services. These inadequacies have indeed led to shortcomings in the implementation of the above-mentioned programmes. The Commission is engaged in ongoing discussions with the Greek authorities to address these inadequacies.

The Commission cannot confirm that the inspection fees referred to have not been spent because there is no information available on this subject.

(1) OJ L 23, 29.1.1991. (2) OJ L 213, 24.8.1993. C 364 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0908/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission (28 March 2001)

Subject: Failure to notify the Commission of State aids to Spanish electricity companies

The new wording of the Sixth Transitional Provision of the Spanish Electricity Industry Act has abolished the provisions previously applied regarding securitisation and the 4,5 % allocation based on the standard rate, a system which to date has raised some ESP 500 billion in what has to be considered State aid, as the Spanish Government itself acknowledged when it proposed to change the rules. In spite of that fact, Spanish legislation does not specify what is to be done with the amounts collected under these rules, which have been amended in accordance with the Commission’s suggestions. The end result is a paradoxical situation in which the electricity companies have received sums which, in principle, constitute unnotified aids.

Does the Commission believe that it should any steps to prevent electricity companies from benefiting from what essentially amounts to unnotified State aids?

Answer given by M. Monti on behalf of the Commission (11 May 2001)

Pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (former Article 99) of the EC Treaty (1), and in accordance with Court of Justice case-law, the fact that aid is unlawful, i.e. that it is granted before the Commission has taken a decision on whether it is compatible with the common market, is not in itself a sufficient condition for requiring reimbursement. In each case, the Commission must also demonstrate that the aid is incompatible with the common market. The question raised by the Honourable Member will therefore be dealt with in the Commission’s final decision on the case in point.

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(2001/C 364 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/01 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) and John Corrie (PPE-DE) to the Council (29 March 2001)

Subject: Habitat+5 and the family

In the light of 12 paragraphs referring to the family in the 1996 Habitat Platform for Action, in particular paragraph 31, which states that: ‘Human settlement planning should take into account the constructive role of the family in the design, development and management of such settlement. Society should facilitate as appropriate all necessary conditions for its integration, reunification, preservation, improvement, and protection within adequate shelter and with access to basic secure and sustainable livelihood.’ In the light of the European Parliament’s Hermange report on family protection, and in the light of the constitutionnal protection of the family in the Irish Constitution and in most other EU constitutions, how will the Council promote the recognition and inclusion of the importance of the family in the upcoming Ungass (1)on Habitat+5? What terminology will be proposed to achieve family promotion, which is at the heart of every human settlement?

(1) Extraordinary meeting of the General Assembly of the UN.

Reply (27 September 2001)

From 6 to 8 June 2001, five years after ‘Habitat II’ (Istanbul 1996), the General Assembly of the United Nations will hold a special session to review and appraise implementation of the Habitat Agenda 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/27

worldwide. In assessing progress toward the Habitat Agenda commitments and strategies, all Member States of the United Nations were invited to prepare a report on national and local implementation of the Habitat Agenda, reflecting the views of the government and of its partners. Therefore, it is not a matter of renegotiating the Habitat Agenda but of complying with its paragraph 240 which states:

All partners of the Habitat Agenda, including local authorities, the private sector and communities, should regularly monitor and evaluate their own performance in the implementation of the Habitat Agenda through comparable human settlements and shelter indicators and documented best practices …

The Commission on Human Settlements acting as the preparatory committee for the special session of the General Assembly for an overall review and appraisal of the implementation of the outcome of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) has decided to transmit the text of a draft declaration on cities and other human settlements in the new millennium to the General Assembly at its twenty-fifth special session for further consideration.

The European Union has contributed to this text during the last Prep Com (Nairobi 19-23 February 2001). In particular, paragraph 30 of such draft declaration which specifically refers to paragraph 31 of the Habitat Agenda on the role of the family states:

We reaffirm that the family is the basic unit of society and as such should be strengthened. It is entitled to receive comprehensive protection and support. In different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist. Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses, and husband and wife should be equal partners. The rights, capabilities and responsibilities of family members must be respected. Human settlements planning should take into account the constructive role of the family in the design, development and management of such settlements. Society should facilitate, as appropriate, all necessary conditions for its integration, reunification, preservation, improvement, and protection within adequate shelter, and with access to basic services and a sustainable livelihood.

This language has been agreed by all Member States, nevertheless negotiations are still ongoing, as the Prepcom II decided to hold a two days of intersessional negotiations on 4 and 5 June in New York, immediately before the Ungass which will start on 6 June 2001.

(2001/C 364 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0938/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Faster payment of its bills by the Commission

One topic considered in ‘The Eurocrats’, a Danish TV programme broadcast on Swedish television on11 February 2001, was the length of time the Commission takes to pay its bills for various projects. According to the report, not even four out of 10 invoices are paid on time, one example being an invoice submitted to the Commission for an environmental project in Ireland. It took eight Commission staff to scrutinise the invoice and sixty days to pay it.

Many small undertakings have bills unpaid by the Commission and are forced to wait far too long for payment. Part of the problem is that so many Commission staff have to verify each bill submitted.

What does the Commission intend to do to establish routines to speed up the payment of invoices and to reduce the manpower used to scrutinise them? C 364 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2001)

The Commission set a target in 1991 that payments should be made within 60 days of the receipt of a valid request for payment. Since 1997 it has paid interest on late payments.

In 2000, 74 % of payments were made within the 60 day limit. The Commission’s aim, as stated in Action 10 in Part II of the White Paper ‘Reforming the Commission’ (1) adopted on 1 March 2000, is to make 95 % of its payments within this limit by 2002.

The Commission has addressed the question of payment times on a number of occasions, most recently in July 2000. On this occasion it decided on a number of measures aimed at speeding up the payment of invoices. Neither the Commission nor outside consultants identified, however, excessive number of staff to scrutinise invoices as a cause of late payment.

Some of the Commission’s measures will have the effect, nevertheless, of improving routines and reducing the number of staff involved in scrutinising invoices.

These include:

 the clarification of the terms of the contracts; this includes laying down the particulars that must be included in contracts and ensuring that technical annexes setting out what the contractor is to deliver to the Commission at each stage of a project are drawn up with precision and can be verified by both parties;

 the simplification of financial and procedural provisions in the contracts; this includes the simplification of financial clauses and reduction of the number of supporting documents to be produced for payment requests under contracts which are based wholly or partly on procedures for the reimbursement of costs, by setting standard amounts for certain categories of expenditure such as travel expenses;

 the improvement of Information technology (IT) tools and procedures; this includes the provision of a common system for recording invoices received and monitoring their processing for payment.

(1) COM(2000) 200 final.

(2001/C 364 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0943/01 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Aid under the Regional Fund for quality controls of Styrian kernel oil pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2081/1992

Member States are obliged, pursuant to Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/1992 (1) of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, to create inspection structures to ensure that agricultural products and foodstuffs bearing a protected name meet the requirements laid down in the specifications. According to Article 10(3) the inspection authority can use the services of third parties. The costs of these inspections are borne by the producers using the protected name. Styrian kernel oil is a name protected under this Regulation.

Which bodies have been notified to the Commission by the Republic of Austria as bodies for the inspection of Styrian kernel oil?

Has money been made available under EU Regional Fund for the inspection of Styrian kernel oil and what amount? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/29

If so to whom were these funds transferred?

Are there any accounts for the use of this aid?

Is it clear from the accounts that the aid relates to subsidised inspections?

Would subsidised inspections be a misappropriation of EU aid?

Does the subsidising of inspections contravene Article 10(7) of Regulation No 208/1992?

Is the use of Regional Fund aid conditional on not creating any distortion of competition between the different inspection bodies?

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

Inspection structures, as notified by the Member States in accordance with article 10(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, have recently been published (1).

With regard to ‘Steierisches Kürbiskernöl’, Austria notified the Commission that the public service ‘Der Landeshauptmann Steiermark’, located in Herrengasse 16, 8010 Graz, was the inspection authority.

No Community financed regional aid is granted to control activities concerning Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.

(1) OJ C 365, 19.12.2000.

(2001/C 364 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0945/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(29 March 2001)

Subject: Visits of Taiwanese government officials to the EU

Can the Council confirm whether it is EU policy not to allow Taiwanese government officials to visit any EU Member State? If this is the case, can the Council reveal who took the decision?

Moreover, can the Council explain why such a decision was taken and is still in force today, since Taiwan is a strong democratic state with amicable ties with the EU, while the PRC has repeatedly been criticised over its human rights violations?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council recalls to the Honourable Member its position on this question as it appears in particular in the Presidency declaration on behalf of the Union dated 20 July 1999, which states that the European Union supports the principle of ‘One China’. While the EU does not restrict economic, cultural and scientific contacts with the people of Taiwan, it does not encourage official visits. C 364 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0953/01 by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Packaging for fruit and vegetables

The Commission wishes to repeal Regulation (EC) No 411/97 (1) laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (2) (COM in fruit and vegetables) as regards operational funds and programmes and Community financial assistance. In paragraph 1 of the Annex to a subsequent amendment of that regulation it is specifically stated that, amongst other environmental measures, ‘recyclable packaging’ could be eligible for funding during the period of implementation of a single operational programme. However, in Article 8(2)(b)(iii) of the new Commission regulation the term ‘reusable packing’ is used.

In the light of the Green Paper on integrated products policy and since there will at some stage in the future be a new proposal for a directive on packaging, could the Commission explain the reasons which prompted the switch to a different criterion, with particular reference to the fruit and vegetable sector?

(1) OJ L 62, 4.3.1997, p. 9. (2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2001)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 609/2001 of 28 March 2001, laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards operational programmes, operational funds and Community financial assistance, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 411/97 (1) in application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 411/97, provides that certain specific costs within approved operational programmes of producer organisations may be eligible for Community financing.

As far as packaging for fruit and vegetables is concerned, Article 8(2)(b)(iii) specifies that operational programmes may cover specific costs for environmental measures, which may include recyclable and / or re-useable packaging.

(1) OJ L 90, 30.3.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0998/01 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: 1999 discharge  agriculture

The information provided by the Commission in connection with question 2.7 of the second questionnaire on the granting of the discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 1999 financial year does not reply to the questions raised in various aspects. Can the Commission therefore clarify the following points:

With regard to question 2.7(d):

 Can the Commission clarify the concept of production aid in the context of its answer in relation to the support scheme for olive oil? With regard to both olive oil and milk, is the Commission referring to the reports made by the Member States during 1999 or to irregularities occurring in 1999?

 Table 2 on the clearance of accounts process is also difficult to understand. Can the Commission make these comparisons in the context of fraud and irregularities, excluding market mechanisms intended to restrict surplus production? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/31

 Can the Commission make a comparison between the two sectors based on the same timescale? Can the Commission confirm that, as regards the milk sector, the Member States notified only € 4,2 million in fraud in 1999? Can the Commission confirm that no deduction was made from the milk sector in 1999 as part of the clearance of accounts process? Can the Commission explain how the organisation of payment schemes can justify the disparities between the milk sector and the olive oil sector?

 Given the difference in scale between these sectors, the Commission’s figures show that the Member States are detecting hundreds of times more irregularities involving olive oil than involving milk. Does the Commission consider it reasonable to assume that olive oil producers are hundreds of times more predisposed to commit irregularities than milk producers?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

By ‘production aid’, in the olive-oil sector the Commission is referring to aid granted under Article 5 of Council Regulation No 133/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats (1).

Table 2 shows the financial corrections relating to decisions under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) accounts clearance procedure. These financial corrections cover the milk and milk products sector and specific measures such as butter for pastrymaking, casein and the additional levy (under the milk-quota system).

Excepting that for casein (NL), none of the corrections arise from irregularities or fraud. Those relating to the additional levy concern neither aid nor expenditure, but revenue (‘negative expenditure’) for the EAGGF, which must only be collected or credited by the Member States where there is an overrun in the national quantity available. If a Member State fails to credit those amounts to the EAGGF, once all checks have been completed by the authorities and the Commission, a correction covering 100 % of the additional levy, plus interest for late payment, is proposed.

For one and the same period, i.e. 1998, 1999 and 2000, Member States’ communications on irregularities which have been the subject of the primary administrative or judicial findings of fact under Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an information system in this field and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 283/72 (2) show:

 as regards consumption aid for olive oil, a total of € 136 million, including € 131 million involving Italy for irregularities communicated in 1998 (but relating to irregularities which occurred between 1990 and 1996). The scheme to provide olive-oil consumption aid has since been abandoned, in particular on account of the high risk of fraud;

 as regards production aid for olive oil, a total of € 20 million (including € 9 million for 1999 and € 3,7 million for 2000);

 in the milk sector, a total of almost € 32 million (€ 30.5 million for market-support measures and € 1,3 million for production aid). For 1999 alone, the amounts concerned here equal € 8,8 million.

In the Commission’s reply to point 2.7(d) of the ‘Blak’ questionnaire, only production aid for olive oil was referred to. As indicated above, the irregularities reported by the Member States in fact concerned both production and consumption aid. The figures relating to the irregularities reported have also been verified and updated in the meantime.

In 1999 the Commission adopted five accounts clearance decisions. The financial corrections imposed on Member States totalled € 757,8 million. Of this only € 7,8 million concerned the milk sector. C 364 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

As the annex to the Commission’s reply to point 2.7(d) of the ‘Blak’ questionnaire for the 1999 discharge stated, in total substantial financial corrections concerning the milk sector have nevertheless been imposed on Member States under the Commission’s clearance of accounts decisions adopted in 2000 and 2001.

As regards the Honourable Member’s request for an explanation as to how the organisation of payment schemes can justify the discrepancies between the sectors, the types of aid schemes and their inherent risks should be considered.

In the olive-oil sector:

 production aid is paid to the individual producer on the basis of the quantity of olive oil declared. There is a direct relationship between the quantity declared by the oil mill and the financial aid received by the individual producer. Controls introduced by the specific olive-oil inspection bodies have become more effective;

 consumption aid was paid on the basis of quality requirements and the quantity placed on the consumer market. Despite all the controls introduced, there were numerous possibilities of corrupt practice. This was one of the reasons for abandoning the aid scheme.

In the milk sector there are neither direct payments to producers nor payments based on the quality or quantity of fresh whole milk; the ‘aid to producers’ is paid on the basis of milk products  casein, milk powder, butter  at the next stage in the processing chain: an intermediate dairy (thus not to individual farmers).

The Commission has no reason to believe that producers in one sector are as such more likely to commit irregularities than producers in another sector.

(1) OJ B 172, 30.9.1966. (2) OJ L 67, 14.3.1991.

(2001/C 364 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1004/01 by Edward McMillan-Scott (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights

What plans does the Commission have for the continued administration, monitoring and evaluation of projects financed from Chapter B7-70?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2001)

On 29 April 1999 the Council adopted two Regulations (1) laying down procedures for the implemen- tation of Community development cooperation operations contributing to the objective of consolidating democracy and the rule of law and to that of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms; they provide a legal basis for all human rights and democratisation operations financed by Chapter B7-70 of the Community budget.

Under the reform of external aid, the Directorate General (DG) for External Relations initially undertakes programming, in consultation with the geographical departments and the delegations, to establish priorities based on objectives covered by regulations on human rights and taking the EU’s political priorities into account. The programming is then implemented by Cooperation Office departments. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/33

1. Management and monitoring

The Chapter covers five budget lines (2) for 2001 and contains three main ways of implementing the EU’s strategy in the areas in question:

(a) Projects identified through a public call for proposals (3) With a contribution from the Commission of at least € 300 000 per project, they are implemented by civil society operators, including local authorities (but not including national or international governmental institutions and organisations). Priorities based on objectives covered by human rights regulations were defined for the call. In accordance with the Commission approach to taking the gender policy into account, submitted projects must refer specifically to the impact their activities will have on men and women. Around 1300 projects worth approximately € 1 billion in total have been received since the call.

(b) Targeted projects Projects are implemented within the framework of common programmes with partners which can include international governmental organisations and national authorities. The Commission identifies them in pursuance of specific objectives unable to be achieved through the call for proposals. The aim is to support projects which are important enough and will last long enough to ensure that the activities will make an obvious difference to the situation in question. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Commission will support projects worth a minimum of € 600 000.

(c) Microprojects Microprojects launched by local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) receive a Community contribution up to € 50 000 and are managed directly by the Commission delegation in the countries concerned. They involve NGOs, which play an essential role in their countries but generally cannot access funding from the budget in the ways described above due to their limited size and human resources. The Commission delegations are responsible for launching a local call for proposals based on specific priorities, assessing and selecting projects, concluding contracts with applicants, selection and payments, in line with guidelines agreed by the Commission

2. Evaluation

Each contract provides the possibility for the Commission and the Court of Auditors to inspect documents and places where projects are implemented.

An independent annual evaluations of 10 to 15 % of all projects is planned during the third quarter of 2001 (there are currently 724 projects under way, costing € 221 million), i.e. an assessment of around 100 projects each year.

Detailed instructions for the evaluation and regular follow-up of all projects will be adopted. Methodological instruments for regular follow-up will be adopted at the end of the third quarter of 2001.

An electronic network of all recipients will be set up, allowing direct contact. It is planned to publish articles on the projects on an Internet site dedicated to supporting democracy and human rights.

(1) Council Regulations (EC) No 975/1999 and 976/1999 of 29 April 1999 (OJ L 120, 8.5.1999). (2) B7-701 (Promotion and protection of human rights), B7-702 (Supporting democracy), B7-703 (Prevention of conflicts and dealing with the consequences of conflicts), B7-704N (International criminal courts), B7-709N (Free and fair elections). (3) Only the three budget lines B7-701, 702 and 703 are included in the call. In 2001 it is planned to allocate around 50 % of the total appropriations in this chapter to the call for proposals, i.e. around 50 % of the available funding for each of the three budget lines. C 364 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1021/01 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Relations between India and Pakistan

The perverse decisions taken recently by the Afghan government have highlighted the permanently strained relations between India and Pakistan over the issue of Kashmir. Since border disputes between the two countries have remained unresolved for a number of decades and the neighbouring countries China and Afghanistan have been involved either directly or indirectly, the conflict between India and Pakistan has all the makings of a major international flashpoint.

As the European Union is seeking to play a more important role on the international political scene and the two countries concerned are major trading partners, will the Council say:

1. What is the state today of EU relations with India and Pakistan, respectively?

2. What agreements have been concluded between the European Union and India and Pakistan, respectively?

3. Has it ever raised the problem of Kashmir in its occasional discussions with these two countries?

4. Has it so far taken any initiatives to find a solution to the problem of Kashmir and, if not, does it intend to do so?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council shares the Honourable MEP’s worries over the tensions between India and Pakistan.

Concerning the various aspects of the question, the Council would like to point out the following:

1. Concerning the state of the EU’s relation with India, the Council invites the Honourable MEP to revert to the reply given to Question H-0301/2001 by Gerard Collins MEP during Question Time in April 2001, a copy of which is annexed to the present answer.

2. As far as Pakistan is concerned, the Council has, in reaction to the military coup of 1999, suspended the signature of the 3rd generation EC-Pakistan Co-operation Agreement and the regular political dialogue meetings. The EC continues, however, to provide development assistance to the most vulnerable parts of the Pakistani population as well as humanitarian assistance to Afghan refugees stranded in Pakistan. Furthermore, the Council has conducted on an ad hoc basis two high-level Troika missions to Pakistan, in November 1999 and November 2000 respectively, during which the Troika has raised the EU’s various preoccupations with the highest Pakistani authorities, including Gen. Musharraf. On these occasions, the Troika pointed explicitly to the situation in Kashmir and invited Pakistan to work for a reduction of tension, restraint over the Line of Control and a resumption of dialogue with India.

3. Similar messages have been addressed to the Indian government on the occasion of the regular political dialogue meetings which the EU holds with India, including at the level of Heads of Government, Foreign Ministers and Senior Officials.

4. EU-India relations are based on EC-India Co-operation agreement of 1993 which entered into force in August 1994, on the Joint Political Statement signed on the same occasion, and on the Joint Summit declaration of June 2000. A bilateral agreement on Science and Technology is currently being negotiated between India and the EC, and negotiations on a Customs Cooperation agreement are likely to start soon. Exploratory talks on a EC-India Agreement on Maritime Transport will be held in on 19 May 2001 in New Delhi. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/35

5. As far as the Union’s support for a negotiated settlement of the Kashmir issue is concerned, the Council would like to refer the Honourable MEP to its reply to Oral Question H-0375/2001 by Brian Crowley MEP during Question Time in May 2001, a copy of which is annexed to the present answer.

(2001/C 364 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1041/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Discovery of mass graves and disappearance of civilians in Chechnya

Humanitarian organisations such as Human Rights Watch have protested against the disappearance of civilians and the existence of mass graves containing hundreds of bodies in Chechnya as a consequence of the war started by Russia. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Álvaro Gil-Robles, recently visited Moscow and protested to the Russian authorities at the impunity enjoyed by Russian forces in the face of these atrocities.

What action is the Council currently taking with a view to ensuring that these dreadful occurrences are stopped and promoting a political solution to the war which recognises the national freedom of the Chechen people?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The EU has spoken out steadfastly against all attacks on human rights and dignity in Chechnya, whoever may be the authors. While recognising the difficulties Russia faces in Chechnya, the EU has been particularly vocal in criticising the Russian government for its role in the Chechen republic of its country. Time and again, the EU has raised this issue at the very highest level with the Russian authorities. It was brought up in Stockholm on 23 March, at the meeting between the European Council and President Putin, and again at the EU-Russia Cooperation Council in Luxembourg on 10 April. The Presidency also addressed the issue at the Summit with President Putin in Moscow on 17 May.

Ever since the beginning of the conflict, the EU has given its full support to both the Council of Europe (CoE) and the OSCE Assistance Group. The EU recognises that these institutions can play a certain role in improving the human rights situation in Chechnya, including by helping to investigate all the cases of missing persons that have been reported. The EU therefore welcomed the visit of Mr Gil-Robles to Moscow. The EU welcomed the setting up of a joint working group between the offices of the Russian Prosecutor General, the Chechen Prosecutor, and that of Mr Kalamanov, Russian Presidential Special Representative for human rights in Chechnya, assisted by CoE experts.

The EU has consistently adopted an outspoken and principled stand, at no small cost to its immediate relations with Russia. This position has been fully in line with the EU’s general stance on human rights, as laid out in the resolution presented to the 2000 session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (2000/ 58), enumerating and condemning, clearly and comprehensively, the various violations of human rights and humanitarian law committed in Chechnya. In the context of this year’s session of the Commission, the EU again strove to reach agreement with Russia on a joint Chairman’s statement concerning the situation in Chechnya. These efforts were not ultimately successful, however, and instead a resolution was passed (2001/24). Nonetheless, concessions made by the Russian authorities in the course of negotiations show that Russia is increasingly prepared to acknowledge its failings and to cooperate with the international community. C 364 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

It remains the firm and considered conviction of the Council that engagement is the best path by which the EU may work to improve the situation in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation. Without dialogue there would be no way for us to impress on Russia that it must fulfil its international commitments. It is only through this same dialogue with Russia that practical progress can be made on humanitarian aid and the protection of human rights in the interests of the people of Chechnya.

The Council believes that the fact that Russia has been taking steps in the right direction  albeit belatedly and not going far enough  vindicates this approach. During his visit to Moscow, Mr Gil-Robles did note some positive developments, notably strengthened political will in Russia to move forward in Chechnya with democratic construction, rebuilding, establishing peace and seeking political solutions. The work of Mr Kalamanov’s office, involving collaborators from the Council of Europe, the establishment of civilian courts, the first indictments for human rights violations and the adoption of a few reconstruction measures are a start, even if still too little. However, the Council will continue to press the Russian authorities to bring to justice all those responsible for human rights violations.

(2001/C 364 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1044/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Oppression of women in Afghanistan and the need for European Union humanitarian intervention

Does the Council not believe that there is an increasing need for European Union humanitarian intervention in Afghanistan to end the terrible oppression being suffered by women at the hands of the country’s regime, thus responding as part of the international community in the face of this genocide? What new and effective action will it take?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

In reply to various oral and written questions over the past weeks and months, the Council has on several occasions informed the European Parliament of its position concerning various aspects of the Afghan problems, and in particular of action taken in respect to the humanitarian crisis and regarding the alleviation of suffering of Afghan women. In the absence of particular new developments, the Council therefore invites the Honourable MEP to revert to the replies given to Questions E-0088/2001, H-0032/ 2001, H-0052/2001 and H-0170/2001, the texts of which will be sent as an annex.

(2001/C 364 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1045/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Measures presented by the United Kingdom to reduce the flow of refugees and immigrants into the European Union

The measures presented by the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Council of Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs in February 2001 with a view to reducing the flow of refugees and immigrants into the European Union, including a proposal to reform the United Nations Charter on Refugees, contradict the Union’s objective needs and political and economic capacity. What stage has been reached in the Council’s handling of these proposals? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/37

Reply

(27 September 2001)

In the area of asylum and migration the Council is pursuing the programme laid down in Title IV of the Treaty and more particularly in Article 63, which lists the measures to be adopted by the Council in the short term in this area.

(2001/C 364 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1048/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Women’s employment in the Spanish state

As part of the coordination of Member States’ employment policies provided for in the Treaty of Amsterdam, what measures has the Spanish state put forward to overcome its serious deficit as regards female employment, which would require it to create 3,2 million additional jobs for women if it is to achieve the goal set within the Union, i.e. a rate of 60 % for women’s employment?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

The Lisbon European Council in March 2000 concluded that the average employment rate of women in the Community should increase to more than 60 % by 2010 in support of the target of an overall employment rate of 70 %, reflecting the long term goal of full employment. Progress since the Lisbon European Council was reviewed in the Commission Communication (1) to the Stockholm European Council in March 2001, where agreement was reached on an intermediate target for a Community female employment rate of 57 % by 2005.

The Employment Guidelines for 2001 (2) refer for the first time to the Lisbon targets in the horizontal Guideline A. The Guidelines also indicate that Member States should consider setting national targets for raising the rate of employment, in order to contribute to the overall European objective for 2010.

In considering the situation in Spain, the following factors have to be borne in mind:

(i) the above mentioned targets are to be interpreted as Community-wide averages  consequently the figure of 3,2 million additional jobs has only an indicative value;

(ii) Member States’ individual contributions to the overall targets have to take into consideration their different starting positions;

(iii) progress against the targets will be assessed in the forthcoming Joint Employment Report for 2001, which will review the implementation of the Employment Guidelines for 2001.

In the annual assessment of the Spanish National Action Plan by the Commission and the Council in the framework of the Joint Employment Report for 2000, it appeared that Spain had the lowest employment rate for women in the Community (37,6 %) and the widest gender gap in employment (30,3 percentage points). The Report also noted that, despite this, Spain had introduced only limited measures to improve the situation. Therefore, the Report concluded that Spain should intensify its efforts to raise the female employment rate.

Consequently, the Recommendations addressed to the individual Member States (3) in the context of this most recent annual assessment of national employment policies, included a recommendation to Spain to do more to support mainstreaming of equal opportunities in order to bring the female employment rate up towards the average. C 364 E/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The forthcoming Joint Employment Report for 2001, based on the analysis of National Action Plans on employment to be submitted by Member States in May in line with Article 128 of the EC Treaty, will offer an opportunity to review the progress achieved by Spain in response to the Employment Guidelines and Recommendations.

The Joint Employment Report for 2000 and the Employment Guidelines for 2001, as well as the Recommendations addressed to the individual Member States can be accessed on the internet: http:// europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/empl&esf/ees_en.htm. The Spanish National Action Plan for 2001 will be included at this site in due course.

The European Social Fund (ESF) is the Community’s main financial tool for supporting the European Employment Strategy. Concerning the fourth pillar of the Employment Guidelines (equal opportunities between women and men), there are two types of initiatives to boost the participation of women in the labour market: horizontal and specific initiatives. The former makes special reference to women in all priority areas. The latter are only addressed to women: about € 124 millions (6 % of the budget concerning Objective 3) and about € 232 millions (3 % of the budget concerning Objective 1) will be made available through ESF over the period 2000-2006. This includes measures such as vocational training for women, support for entrepreneurial projects, and initiatives which facilitate family and working life. The Fund will also finance measures to combat occupational segregation and wage discrimination.

(1) Commission Communication ‘Realising the European Union’s Potential: consolidating and extending the Lisbon strategy’ COM(2001) 79 final. (2) Council Decision 2001/63/EC of 19 January 2001 on Guidelines for Member States’ employment policies for the year 2001 (OJ L 22, 24.1.2001). (3) Council Recommendation of 19 January 2001 on the implementation of Member States’ employment policies (OJ L 22, 24.1.2001).

(2001/C 364 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1060/01 by John Corrie (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Assistance for the development of church-based or other religious NGOs

What conditions does the Commission apply to requests for co-financing or other assistance for development projects in developing countries submitted by church-based or other religious NGOs?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The eligibility for co-financing under Budgetline B7-6000 of church  based or other religious non- governmental organisations (NGOs) is exactly the same as for all non governmental organisations and set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1658/98 of 17 July 1998 on co-financing operations with European non-governmental development organisations (NGOs) in fields of interest to the developing countries (1) Article 3:

The agents of cooperation eligible for co-financing under this Regulation shall be NGOs satisfying the following conditions:

 they must be constituted as autonomous non-profit-making organizations in a Member State in accordance with the laws of that State,

 they must have their headquarters in a Member State and the headquarters must be the main center for decisions relating to the co-financed operations,

 the majority of their funding must originate in Europe. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/39

In determining whether an NGO is eligible for co-financing, account shall also be taken of:

 its capacity to mobilize genuine solidarity on the part of the European public for its development activities,

 the priority it accords to development and its experience in that field,

 its administrative and financial management capacities,

 where possible, its knowledge of the sector and country concerned,

 its ability to support the development operations proposed by the partners in the developing countries and the nature and scope of its links with similar organizations in the developing countries.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.

(2001/C 364 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1065/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Coordination of the Sensus project

Coordination of the Sensus project is in the hands of a certain Stephan Bodenkamp. Officially he is employed by the Amt für Auslandsfragen in Munich. A ruling from a Munich court (20 December 2000) shows that Bodenkamp’s real name is Christoph Kionowski and that he is an agent of the German state security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, although apparently he has now been suspended.

1. Is the Commission aware that coordination of the Sensus project is in the hands of Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski, an agent of the German state security service, the Bundesnachrich- tendienst? If so, why did the Commission put him in charge of the Sensus project?

2. Will the Commission relieve Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski of coordination of the Sensus project since he is an agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If not, why does the Commission continue to entrust him with coordination of the project?

3. Will the Commission relieve Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski of coordination of the Sensus project in view of his sentencing by a Munich court for forging a contract with a German technology firm in the context of the Sensus project? If not, why does the Commission nevertheless entrust him with coordination of the project?

4. Will the Commission relieve Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski of coordination of the Sensus project in view of his suspension by the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If not, why does the Commission nevertheless continue to entrust him with coordination of the project?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2001)

Amt für Auslandsfragen (AfA) became the co-ordinator of the Sensus project at a late stage of the contract negotiation phase, at the suggestion of the other project participants. The responsible Commission services in charge of the project negotiation did not have objections to this suggestion, as in light of its participation in previous projects and as a government agency, AfA had the necessary commitment to the project, as well as the administrative ability and financial stability to manage a large and complex project such as Sensus. Similarly, Mr Bodenkamp as technical director of AfA, was considered to be suitable as project manager. The Commission was not informed at the time of the signature of the contract that Mr Bodenkamp was an official of the German Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND). C 364 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

At the request of the Member of the Commission responsible for Enterprises and Information Society, the Information Society Directorate General has initiated an internal review on the management of the Sensus project. Depending on the results of the internal review and with due consideration of the information that has been brought to the attention of the Commission, the Commission will take further measures, if appropriate. These measures may include asking AfA to nominate another co-ordinator to the Sensus project.

(2001/C 364 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1072/01 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Irregularities in Greek population census of March 2001

On Sunday, 18 March 2001, a general population census was carried out in Greece. The census is conducted every ten years and was publicised by the government as ‘the first census of the new millennium’.

Despite all the technological facilities afforded by the new millennium, however, the National Statistical Service of Greece issued instructions to its census officers to use pencil to fill in the forms, while the information relating to immigrants living in Greece was inadequate. In particular, non-EU nationals were not asked whether they had a legal residence permit for Greece or how long they had been or intended to stay in the country, which raises legitimate questions about the reliability and accuracy of the data collected. Still fresh in the mind also are allegations by the main opposition party (representing 43 % of the Greek population) concerning illegal naturalisations, which evidently distorted the outcome of the elections held in April 2000.

Is pencil (which obviously makes it easier to alter the data collected) used for censuses in the other Member States?

Should the data collected not include information concerning third country nationals living legally or illegally in a Member State of the Union?

Are data concerning legal and illegal residents in Greece forwarded to Eurostat?

On what data does the EU’s Statistical Service base its Eurobarometer statistics and other published statistical indicators?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2001)

The organisation of population censuses in the Member States is regulated by the ‘UN-ECE/Eurostat recommendations for the 2000 censuses of population and housing’.

These recommendations do not specify which means should be used to fill in the questionnaire. It is, however, considered as good practice not to use a pencil.

With regard to the foreign population, it should be pointed out that the basic aim of a population census is to count the usually resident population of a Member State.

The usually resident population consists of:  persons living in the Member State at the moment of the census and who have stayed or are going to stay in the Member State for at least 12 months;  persons living in the Member State, but temporarily absent for not more than 12 months,  independently of the person’s place of legal residence or whether he or she has permission to stay in the Member State or not. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/41

Every person belonging to the usually resident population is asked either about his/her citizenship or country of birth. The census therefore contains information on the foreign population.

The statistical information from the censuses will be transmitted to Eurostat in the form of a Community programme of tables. These tables will include information on the foreign population. A copy of the document presenting this programme of tables will be sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament.

Generally speaking, Eurostat does not directly collect statistical information available directly from data providers (households, enterprises, etc.). This information is collected and transmitted to Eurostat by the national statistical services, particularly the National Statistical Institutes, in accordance with Community definitions and methods in order to ensure comparability.

With regard to the Eurobarometer mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question, the Commission wishes to draw his attention to the fact that the Eurobarometer is not a statistical instrument but an opinion poll. The Eurobarometer surveys are carried out at the Commission’s request by reputable survey institutes in the Member States.

(2001/C 364 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1080/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(9 April 2001)

Subject: Protracted settlement procedures following (road) accidents in Switzerland

On Friday, 16 February the Swedish Presidency discussed with the President of Switzerland the right to rapid, low-cost compensation for European victims of road accidents in Switzerland. This initiative is part of the search for a solution to the long drawn out damage claims between EU victims and Swiss insurance companies, because the fourth directive on motor vehicle insurance is not applicable here.

Loop-holes in Swiss legislation enable insurance companies to withhold for a very long time the payment of damages resulting from civil liability. This source of legal uncertainty affects EU citizens who are victims of (road) accidents in Switzerland. They become caught up in a legalistic procedural wrangle with no prospect of compensation within a reasonable period of time. One of the victims is a citizen of the Belgian Federation who has been waiting for a number of years for speedy, equitable and fair compensation.

This case has already prompted questions to the Commission, the Council and the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs. In reply to a previous question, the Council said that EU Institutions had acknowledged the problem of protracted settlement procedures following road accidents in third countries and that they were prepared to tackle the problem with the proposal for the third directive on motor vehicle insurance. However, the fourth directive affords no solution to the settlement procedures which are still under way.

1. What results and/or agreements have come from discussions with the Swiss President?

2. Does the Council think that a rapid, fair and reasonable solution will be found, within the foreseeable future, for the victims involved in protracted settlement procedures following road accidents in Switzerland? If not, what further action will the Council take in order to find a rapid, fair and reasonable solution within the foreseeable future? C 364 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The fourth motor insurance Directive (1) which has been referred to in the Written Question and in the Council’s answers to previous questions relating to the settlement procedures following road accidents, adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in 2000, aims at shortening and simplifying the settlement procedures that follow after road accidents having a transnational dimension to the extent provided for in the Directive.

The fourth motor insurance Directive applies, to some extent, to settlement procedures that follow after accidents in Switzerland. This is because the Directive also applies to injured parties resident in a Community Member State who are entitled to compensation in respect of loss or injury resulting from accidents occurring in third countries whose national insurers’ bureaux, as defined in Article 1(3) of Directive 72/166/EEC, have joined the Green Card system whenever such accidents are caused by the use of vehicles insured and normally based in a Member State.

However, accidents in Switzerland which occur for instance between a vehicle insured in Switzerland and a vehicle insured in a Community Member State do not fall within the scope of the Directive. An improvement of settlement procedures in such cases would have to be negotiated between the Community and Switzerland.

Since this matter belongs to the Community competence, the initiative for such negotiations has to come from the Commission as a recommendation provided for in Article 300 of the Treaty. No such recommendation has been made to the Council.

The contents of the discussions, which according to the Honourable Member have taken place between the Presidency and the President of Switzerland on 16 February, have not been brought to the attention of the Council.

(1) Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive).

(2001/C 364 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1082/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Blurring of interests and distortion of competition with the Sensus project

The Sensus project, the successor to Aventinus, seeks to develop an information exchange programme for the European police and intelligence services. The search for interesting language technology is an important part of this project. Sensus is subsidised by the Commission. The reply to Question P-0009/ 01 (1) shows that Sensus and Aventinus I and II have been financed from budget line B6-6121.113 of the telematics applications programme (1994-1998). A maximum contribution of € 2 500 000 was approved for Aventinus I, and of this € 2 341 190 was applied for and paid. A maximum contribution of € 550 000 was approved for Aventinus II, of which his € 513 777 was applied for and paid. A maximum contribution of € 2 250 000 was approved for Sensus, of which € 478 753 was paid on 31 December 2000.

Coordination of Sensus is in the hands of Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski, a secret agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst. He is also behind three language Development Companies of Lernout & Haspie (L & H). Thanks to his dual role, the Bundesnachrichtendienst can have access to L & H’s language technology. It is immediately apparent that the Sensus-Bundesnachrichtendienst-L & H set-up results in (a) a dubious blurring of interests between the private and the ‘public sector’, (b) an imbalance in the language technology know-how of the various police and security services and (c) unfair competition between those language technology firms which are involved in Sensus and those which are not. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/43

1. Does the Commission acknowledge that the dual role of the Sensus coordinator leads to a blurring of interests between the public and the ‘private’ sector (in this case the Bundesnachrichtendienst)? If not, what guarantees does the Commission have that the set-up referred to above has not resulted in this blurring?

2. Does the Commission acknowledge that the dual role of the Sensus coordinator has led to an imbalance in the language technology know-how of the various police and security services, in particular in favour of the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If not, what guarantees does the Commission have that the set- up referred to above has not resulted in this imbalance?

3. Does the Commission acknowledge that the dual role of the Sensus coordinator has led to unfair competition between those language technology firms which are involved in Sensus and those which are not? If not, what guarantees does the Commission have that the set-up referred to above has not resulted in unfair competition?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

1. The Sensus project includes several public and private organisations, including police forces and security agencies. The list of participants is consistent with the objectives of the project in developing pre- competitive technology to combat organised crime.

2. The Commission does not consider that there has been an improper imbalance in the availability of language technology to police forces, in favour of those who participated in Sensus.

The involvement of Europol and the presence in the consortium of a user group of police forces across Europe ensured that the project did not favour any specific objectives of any individual participant. Consistent with the open nature of the project, its objectives and the fact that the results have been widely presented to many police forces and at relevant fairs and exhibitions.

3. As the Sensus project is concerned with the development of pre-competitive technology, there would not seem to be any grounds for alleging the occurrence of any unfair competition in this regard.

(2001/C 364 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1084/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: The Sensus project: the European equivalent of DARPA

The Sensus project, the successor to Aventinus, seeks to develop an information exchange programme for European police and intelligence services by analogy with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Coordination of Sensus is in the hands of Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski, a secret agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst. DARPA, a government body, coordinates the research and development programmes of the American Department of Defense.

Two language technology laboratories appear to play a crucial role in DARPA and the Sensus project. Dragon has developed translation technology for US intelligence services and it has cooperated in the Multilingual Interview System (MIS). This system was intended for automatic translation of Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian interviews in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Spring 1998) and of Arabic, Farsi, Hindi and Urdu in the Persian Gulf (Summer 1998). Via its subsidiary Sail Labs, formerly Gesellschaft für Multilingual Systeme mbH, Lernout & Haspie (L & H) was closely involved in the European Sensus project. To complete the picture it should be pointed out that L & H took party in DARPA’s ‘Dominate the Battlespace’ project in 1997. C 364 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Inspired by the MIS success of its rival Dragon, L & H has set up a number of so-called Language Development Companies to develop language technology in Hindi, Farsi, Arabic and Urdu. Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski, secret agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst and coordinator of the Sensus project, set up three Language Development Companies. In early 2000 L & H took over Dragon. The US National Security Agency was strongly opposed to this take-over because of the strategic and sensitive technology which came into the possession of the European group.

1. What activities has L & H carried out under the Sensus project?

2. What activities has L & H’s subsidiary Sail Labs carried out under the Sensus project?

3. What activities have the three Language Development Companies set up by Stephan Bodenkamp/ Christoph Kionowski, carried out under the Sensus project?

4. What activities has L & H’s subsidiary Dragon carried out under the Sensus project?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

In his question the Honourable Member compares the Sensus project with DARPA. This is not a valid comparison. Sensus is a single project with Community funding of € 2,25 million, only one of many cost- shared R & D projects of the Fourth framework programme for Research and Technological Development of the Community. The Fourth framework programme funds projects addressing a diverse range of topics such as biotechnology, transport and energy. DARPA on the other hand is a US government body co- ordinating R & D programmes of the Department of Defense.

Gesellschaft für multilinguale Systeme mbH, (GMS) were involved as partner in the Sensus project during the definition phase which lasted until late 1998. They were responsible for the work package entitled ‘Technology Review’, which included determining which tools necessary for Sensus already existed and on what terms and conditions they could be obtained for the project.

GMS became Lernout & Hauspie (L & H) Sprachtechnologie GmbH and was involved in Sensus until May 1999, when they handed over their role and responsibilities to Sail Labs GmbH.

Sail Labs were responsible for two Linguistic Tools work packages (‘Linguistic Tools for Input Scenario’ and ‘Linguistic Tools for Information Processing’). The first work package concerned the provision of language technology tools, based on components from the Aventinus project and included extending the coverage of these tools to the Greek, Italian, Portuguese and Dutch languages as well as computer aided translation (using term substitution, translation memory and machine translation) and indexing and classification components. The second work package dealt with multilingual and multi-modal processing. Sail Labs were assisted in these tasks by several associate contractors, including well-respected universities and language technology institutes.

Neither the three L & H Language Development Companies nor other L & H companies were involved in the Sensus project.

Mr Bodenkamp has declared (both to the Commission and to the German and international press) that his involvement with three L & H start-ups was as one of the original shareholders  holding 10 of 278 000 shares worth about € 210 in each of the three start-ups  and honorary technical director. He reportedly sold his shares as early as November 1999.

L & H Dragon was not involved in the Sensus project. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/45

(2001/C 364 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1093/01 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Link between Crohn’s disease and paratuberculosis

Could the Commission give a brief summary and findings from the study it has conducted on a possible link between Crohn’s disease and paratuberculosis?

Will the Commission be taking any further action in this area?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2001)

A report entitled ‘Possible links between Crohn’s disease and paratuberculosis’ was adopted by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare in March 2000. The report is available on the Commissions web site at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/out38_en.pdf

The report is a comprehensive review of the subject which merits being read in its entirety. However, the Committee summarises its findings as follows:

The currently available evidence is insufficient to confirm or disprove that Mycobacterium paratuberculosis is a causative agent of at least some cases of Crohn’s disease in man. There are sufficient grounds for concern to warrant increased and urgent research activity to resolve the issue.

The Commission is funding, through the ‘Quality of life and management of living resources’ programme of the Fifth Research and Technological Development (RTD) framework programme, a research project on the improvement of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of sarcoidosis and Crohn’s Disease (Sacrohn). The project started on 1 October 2000 and continues until October 2003. The project aims at developing new molecular detection methods and culture techniques, in particular using molecular typing techniques to establish any possible links between ruminant sources of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis and the aetiology of Crohn’s Disease.

At this early stage no concrete results are available from this project to see whether there may be any links between Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in (products from) ruminants and Crohn’s Disease.

(2001/C 364 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1099/01 by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Council

(9 April 2001)

Subject: Aid for the victims of hurricane Mitch

In response to the devastation of large areas of Honduras and the death of tens of thousands of people caused by hurricane Mitch, the EU promised aid of SEK 2,2 billion towards reconstruction.

More than two years after the disaster, however, it appears that only a tenth of that amount has reached the victims of the hurricane.

While other countries have completed their projects, not even one tenth of the EU’s billions has arrived. The remaining funds appear to be held up in Brussels.

What initiatives will the Council take to change procedures in order to avoid such mistakes in the event of future disasters? C 364 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Reply

(27 September 2001)

As the Honourable member is aware the EU co-operation policy is run by the Commission who is at present undergoing a process of reform in order to prevent some of the deficiencies for which it has been criticised in the past.

In relation to the Regional Program for the Reconstruction of Central America (RPRCA), the European Commission has set up a special administrative entity for the implementation of the programme accompanied by devolution of its management to a special unit set up at the Commission Delegation in Managua. The Commission has presented its ‘First Annual report on implementation and monitoring of the RPRAC regarding year 2000’ to the Council and, indeed, to the European Parliament.

The Council has been following very closely the situation and has called upon the Commission, through the appropriate means, to implement the EU Action Plan on Reconstruction efforts in Central America (RPRCA) without delay.

The Council also maintains an open exchange of views on the matter with its partners in Central America through the San Jose Dialogue. At the XV EU-San Jose Ministerial Conference held in Bonn on 20 May 1999, ministers discussed the contributions of the EU and of Central America to coping with the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch. The Central American countries acknowledged the rapid and generous response of the EU that amounted to more than 1 billion Euros, and welcomed the EU Action Plan on Reconstruction efforts in Central America, amounting to 250 million Euros. Ministers agreed that the reconstruction programme should tackle the structural problems in Central America beyond mere reconstruction, by transforming societies.

On this occasion the Central American part appreciated debt service moratorium and debt reduction decisions in the Paris Club, bilateral debt cancellations and contributions to the multilateral debt service facility as well as new European initiatives for debt reduction.

On the occasion of the XVI EU-San Jose Ministerial Conference held in Vilamoura on 20 February 2000 both parties stressed the importance of the RPRCA being implemented without delay and noted the existence of other long-term programmes financed by the Member States. Both parties recalled that the execution of those reconstruction programmes was to be carried out against the background of the Stockholm Declaration, with a view to contributing to the transformation of the societies of Central America, acting in a transparent and decentralised framework and guaranteeing active participation on the part of civil society, the NGOs and the private sector in the reconstruction process.

On the occasion of the VII San Jose Dialogue held in Guatemala on 26 May 2001 the Ministers welcomed with interest the progress report on aid granted by the European Commission up to the end of 2000 and, in particular, on the achievements of RPRCA.

Finally, in the field of disaster prevention and preparedness, reference should also be made to the allocation by the Commission, since July 1998, of € 5,6 million to the Central American scheme of the Dipecho programme. The aim of the scheme is to reduce the vulnerability of the people of the region most exposed to such disasters. The programme focuses on two aspects: building the capacity of both national and regional institutions to react to natural disasters and, promoting exchanges of information and coordination between communities, civil protection agencies and local administration.

(2001/C 364 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1100/01 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Chechnya

On 25 February of this year, a mass grave containing 60 bodies was discovered in Khankala, on the outskirts of Grozny, less than a kilometre from the headquarters of the Russian forces in Chechnya. According to human rights organisations and various press reports, 16 of the bodies have been identified 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/47

as those of Chechen civilians who had been missing since their arrest and detention by Russian troops. These people were in all probability victims of extra-judicial execution. Statements were taken from people who had reported a relative or close friend as missing and identified the body at the morgue set up by the Ministry for Emergency Situations in Grozny. Of the 16 bodies thus identified, 12 were of civilians arrested since last December while four others had been arrested the previous June or August.

Is the Council aware of the serious nature of these developments? If so, what action has it taken  or does it intend to take  to ensure that an international commission of inquiry ascertains the truth about this affair and all the cases of missing persons that have been reported? More generally, does the Council not consider that its policy in relation to Russia is increasingly coming to resemble a form of complicity in the criminal policy being pursued in Chechnya by the Russian authorities?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

It was with both sorrow and revulsion that the Council learnt the distressing news of the discovery of sixty bodies in a Grozny suburb. As in all such cases, the Council followed reports of the find, and the conflicting accusations that surrounded it.

The EU has spoken out loud and clearly against all attacks on human rights and dignity in Chechnya, whoever may be their authors. While recognising the difficulties Russia is facing along its Southern borders, the EU has been particularly vocal in criticising the Russian government for its role in the Chechen republic of its country. Time and again, the EU has raised this issue at the very highest level with the Russian authorities. It was brought up at the meeting between the European Council and President Putin in Stockholm on 23 March, at the EU-Russia Cooperation Council in Luxembourg on 10 April and most recently at the Summit with President Putin in Moscow on 17 May.

Ever since the beginning of the conflict, the EU has given its full support to both the OSCE Assistance Group and the Council of Europe (CoE). The EU recognises that these institutions can play a certain role in improving the human rights situation in Chechnya, including by helping to investigate all the cases of missing persons that have been reported. The EU therefore regrets the delays experienced by the OSCE in returning to the region, and has called on Russia to remove its objections. On a more positive note, the EU welcomes, however, the setting up of a joint working group between the offices of the Russian Prosecutor General, the Chechen Prosecutor, and that of Mr Kalamanov, Russian Presidential Special Representative for human rights in Chechnya, assisted by CoE experts.

The EU has consistently adopted an outspoken and principled stand, at no small cost to its immediate relations with Russia. This position has been fully in line with the EU’s general stance on human rights, as laid out recently in the resolution that it presented to the 2001 session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (2001/24). The EU continues to put pressure on Russia with a view to bringing the Russian authorities to rapidly take the necessary steps to improve the situation in Chechnya.

Nonetheless, it is the firm and considered conviction of the Council that engagement is the best path by which the EU may work to improve the situation in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation. Without dialogue there would be no way for us to present our views to Russia, and they would be able to ignore the strength of European feelings concerning this important issue. The Council believes that the fact that Russia has been taking steps in the right direction  albeit belatedly and not going far enough  vindicates this approach. At the recent EU-Russia Summit in Moscow, President Putin acknowledged that Russia had not done enough to win back the trust of the Chechen population. He agreed that the humanitarian situation in Chechnya was serious. He invited the EU to put forward guidelines for the improvement of the work of humanitarian aid organisations active in the region. President Putin also suggested to restructure the ongoing assistance efforts in order to create conditions and incentives for the IDPs to return. C 364 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The work of Mr Kalamanov’s office, in which staff from the Council of Europe participate, the setting-up of a civil judiciary, initial charges for human rights violations and the adoption of some reconstruction measures are all first steps in the right direction, even though they are still inadequate. However, the Council will continue to insist that the Russian authorities bring to justice all those responsible for human rights violations.

(2001/C 364 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1109/01 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council (9 April 2001)

Subject: The Luxembourg compromise and the Ioannina compromise after the ratification of the Nice Treaty

What is the status of the Ioannina compromise and the Luxembourg compromise after the ratification of the Nice Treaty?

Reply (27 September 2001)

The Council decision of 29 March 1994 on qualified majority decision-making by the Council (1)as amended by the Decision of 1 January 1995 (2), commonly known as the ‘Ioannina Compromise’, is mentioned in Declaration No 50 annexed to the Final Act to the Amsterdam Treaty relating to the Protocol on the institutions with the prospect of enlargement of the European Union, which is attached to that Treaty. According to this Declaration ‘Until the entry into force of the first enlargement it is agreed that the decision of the Council of 29 March 1994 (’the Ioannina Compromise‘) will be extended and, by that date, a solution for the special case of Spain will be found’. It is recalled that the Council decision of 29 March 1994 does not have an expiry date.

The results of the IGC of Nice will have the following consequences.

The Protocol on the institutions, to which this Declaration is related, will be repealed with the entry into force of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union annexed by the Treaty of Nice to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities. Furthermore, Article 3 of the same Protocol on the enlargement provides for new Council vote weightings which will be applicable in January 2005.

Therefore, the ‘Ioannina Compromise’ will no longer be applicable from 1 January 2005.

As for what is commonly called the ‘Luxembourg Compromise’ (Conclusions of the extraordinary session of the Council in Luxembourg on 17, 18, 27 and 28 January 1966), its status will remain the same after the entry into force of the Nice Treaty.

(1) OJ C 105, 13.4.1994, p. 1. (2) OJ C 1, 1.1.1995.

(2001/C 364 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1130/01 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council (3 April 2001)

Subject: World-wide genocide of Christians

The United Nations and several human rights organisations have recently sounded the alarm over the increase in persecutions of Christians world-wide: in 2000, 165 000 were killed and 200 million persecuted. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/49

Europe, which still bears unhealed scars from the shame of the Holocaust, has a duty to take action to guarantee the right to freedom of religion.

What initiatives does the Council intend to take to safeguard and guarantee freedom of religion  to which everyone has a right  in Europe and the rest of the world?

How does the Council plan to act to stem these cases of intolerance and religious discrimination and to protect laymen and missionaries at work, as they daily put their lives at risk?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

1. During recent years the Council has devoted a lot of attention to combat discrimination. Already in 1996 the Council adopted a Joint Action concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia (1).

Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union establishes as the Union’s objective to provide citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice (2).

In 2000 the Council adopted a Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (3) and a Decision establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination, 2001-2006 (4). At the European Council in Nice, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted in a solemn proclamation the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (5) which recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter. In particular, Article 10 of the Charter provides that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, whilst its Article 22 states that the Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

2. Whenever in the United Nations Organisation or in the Council of Europe the relevant texts concerning freedom of religion have to be strengthened, the Council Presidency will endeavour to reach agreement for a common position of the EU Member States.

(1) OJ L 185, 24.7.1996, p. 5. (2) OJ C 340, 10.11.1997, p. 1. (3) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22. (4) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 23. (5) OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1.

(2001/C 364 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1142/01 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission (10 April 2001)

Subject: Choice of location for the European Food Safety Authority

During the debate preceding the final choice of location for the European Food Safety Authority, the Commission proposed Luxembourg, in order to make use of Community structures already in existence which could accommodate the Authority’s structure following the reorganisation of the European executive’s departments, as a result of the current administrative reform.

Could the Commission therefore state whether, in putting forward this proposal, it has taken as selection criteria geographical centrality, a solid tradition of agribusiness  safeguarding the particular features of the various Member States, particularly in the Mediterranean regions , a strong industrial presence in the food processing sector, and potential for scientific and academic research?

In proposing the above-mentioned location as its seat  a choice which is undoubtedly reasonable if intended to save costs and encourage synergies, through the use of pre-existing structures  has the Commission taken into account the independence and autonomy which the Authority must symbolise, and has it assessed the risk that establishing its seat in Luxembourg could make the authority seem like a mere Commission department? C 364 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission takes the view that the main objective of this Authority will be to restore and preserve public confidence in food safety. This new organisation will therefore have to be able to provide scientific advice, support and communication services on risks in a very effective way. For this reason, the Commission is paying particular attention to the operational requirements for ensuring that the Authority functions as well as possible. Its location must be such that it can be easily reached by European scientists attending meetings of its scientific committees and panels (some 3 000 visits per year) and can communicate easily with the risk management bodies (the Commission, Parliament and Council). In the event of a serious food crisis, the Authority will have to be able to provide the Commission with rapid, ongoing scientific support in the context of the crisis centre mechanisms provided for in the new regulation.

The Authority’s independence will be safeguarded by various provisions in the proposal for a regulation establishing it. Locating it in a city which already hosts a Community institution cannot be seen as a potential threat to its autonomy.

(2001/C 364 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1144/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(11 April 2001)

Subject: Application of ISO standards in EU Member States

The International Standards Organisation was set up in 1947 to set international standards for technical, physical and geographical quantities and units, including their symbols and spellings. ISO standards are the result of close international cooperation and are recognised world-wide.

During the 1950s, the SI-system was created for scientific and technical units (metres, kilograms, seconds, amperes). In 1974 all UN member countries and many entities (mostly islands) were given an official symbol or code. ISO-3166 establishes three codes for each country or entity, a three-figure code, a code consisting of three capital letters and one with two capital letters. If the structure of the State changes, and provided this is recognised by the UN, the symbols may be changed.

Although ISO standards are internationally recognised, they are often wrongly used. Classic examples can be found in the symbols used on cars and lorries, in international postal services, on traffic signs and in the indications for currencies.

Does the Council support the full and correct use of all ISO standards by EU Member States? If not, why does the Council not consider it necessary for the EU Member States to use all ISO standards correctly? If so, what steps will the Council take to ensure that all ISO standards are used fully and correctly by EU Member States?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

In its Resolution on the Role of Standardisation in Europe adopted 28 October 1999 the Council recognised the increasing importance of International Standards. The Council also emphasised the exemplary nature of the Vienna Agreement between ISO and CEN (the European Committee for Standardisation).

Concerning the correct use of ISO Standards referred to in EU-legislation, it is the competence of the Commission to supervise that these are correctly implemented in the Member States’ legislation. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/51

(2001/C 364 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1154/01 by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Health and consumer protection

1. Council Decision 90/424/EEC (1). I would be grateful if you could confirm that under the above Decision, Member States would be entitled to receive a financial contribution from Community Institutions towards compensation costs in the event of them being required to implement eradication measures under Directive 93/53/EEC (2).

2. Is the Commissioner aware that under the ISA withdrawal scheme, approved under Commission Decision 2001/186/EC (3), confirmation of disease has been redefined as the isolation of ISA virus? On what grounds is this justified?

3. What measures does the Commission propose to take to ensure wild fish stocks swimming from Norwegian or Canadian waters, carrying the ISA virus, will not enter EU waters or interact and pass the virus infection to EU bred fish swimming home to EU waters from wild migratory paths?

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19. (2) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993, p. 23. (3) OJ L 67, 9.3.2001, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2001)

Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990, on expenditure in the veterinary field provides for the possibility of a financial contribution from the Community for the eradication and monitoring of a number of diseases which may occur in pigs, cattle, sheep, poultry and fish. With regard to disease in fish, the Community financial measures relate at present to eradication and monitoring of infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN). A proposal to amend Decision 90/424/EEC (1) has been sent to the Council. The proposed amendment, in combination with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2722/2000 of 13 December 2000, establishes the conditions under which the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) may make a contribution towards the eradication of pathological risks in aquaculture (2) and could provide for financial contributions for control measures taken in the case of outbreaks of Infectious salmon anaemia (ISA). Prior to granting a financial contribution, the Member State must present a disease control or eradication programme, which must be approved by the Commission.

The confirmation of ISA shall, according to Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993, introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain fish diseases, be based on the result of laboratory examination or the result of clinical examination and a post-mortem examination. Sampling and laboratory testing for the presence of ISA shall be carried out using the methods established in accordance with Article 15 of Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products (3). Specific methods are under preparation with the assistance of fish disease experts in the Member States and from Norway, the latter having several years of experience in diagnosing and combating ISA. The National Veterinary Institute in Norway is the reference laboratory of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) with regard to ISA. Preliminary discussions with the experts resulted in agreement that the officially confirmed detection of the ISA virus, without clinical signs, is enough to fulfil the criteria for infection.

In relation to the evaluation and adoption of the scheme submitted by the United Kingdom for the withdrawal of fish to be applied in Scotland in case of ISA, disease confirmation was discussed. The Standing Veterinary Committee followed the advice given by the fish disease experts and furthermore took into account the fact that the OIE had recently (in 2000) published an updated diagnostic manual for aquatic animal diseases. In this manual the detection of ISA virus by means of virus cultivation is included as a current diagnostic procedure for confirmation of ISA. C 364 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

In 1991 the Council adopted Directive 91/67/EEC concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products with the objective of having harmonised health rules for ensuring the development of the aquaculture sector and to increase productivity. In 1993, Council Directive 93/53/EEC was adopted with the main objective to establish at Community level the control measures to be taken in the event of outbreaks of disease. The aim of the legislation was not necessarily to eradicate ISA from Community waters but rather to prevent the spread of the disease if present and to eradicate the agent from infected farms.

In relation to measures preventing farmed fish from being infected with ISA virus present in the wild, in addition to the obligatory measures laid down in the present legislation, a review of the animal health/ zootechnics aquaculture legislation has recently been initiated. In the review process, the criteria for diseases to be controlled by obligatory measures will be examined, taking into account the present knowledge about the presence of the agent in the wild and the interchange of infection between farmed and wild susceptible fish. In addition, consideration will be given to further developing Community legislation with regard to preventative management measures at farm and regional level.

(1) COM(2001) 37 final. (2) OJ L 314, 14.12.2000. (3) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991.

(2001/C 364 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1155/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Tuna steaks

On the basis of a study of the demand for tuna steak supplies which assessed the supply of tuna steaks to the Community market in the short and medium term, the Commission decided to open an annual quota of 4000 tonnes at a 6 % preferential rate of duty for the period 2001 to 2003, within the COM in fisheries and aquaculture products.

How has this quota been used by the various Member States, both in 2000 and 2001?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

The Commission considers that the information requested by the Honourable Member is covered by the confidentiality provision in Article 308a(12) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1427/97 of 23 July 1997 (2). Consequently that information cannot be provided.

(1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993. (2) OJ L 196, 24.7.1997.

(2001/C 364 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1175/01 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Birth deficit

At the plenary sitting on Wednesday, 14 March 2001, the Council representative, Mrs Lindh, emphasised that the phenomenon of the ageing population, which is expected to become an explosive issue by 2010, 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/53

constitutes a challenge both for Europe’s mechanisms of production and its social systems. Studies into the birth deficit show that the fall in the birth rate is not only due to women’s difficulties in reconciling family and working life but also to pathological causes relating to both partners. The little statistical data available shows that one in ten couples are involuntarily childless.

1. Will the Council take initiatives to formulate a coherent and generous policy to tackle the birth deficit?

2. In an age in which medical science has developed techniques to assist reproduction, which in combination with hi-tech drugs offer less fertile couples effective options, will the Council encourage the Member States to adopt such practices in their health care systems?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council is paying considerable attention to problems related to the low birth rate in Europe. This work takes place mainly within the Social Protection Committee set up by the Council, in the context of the open method of coordination introduced by the Lisbon European Council in March 2000.

The Nice European Council in December 2000 adopted the European Social Agenda, which addresses amongst other issues the challenge of a declining birth rate and an ageing population. Appropriate policies for families and children, including reconciling family life and working life, are considered to be important tools.

The Stockholm European Council in March 2001 reiterated the need to focus on the demographic challenge by, inter alia, adapting existing social protection systems. To that end, the Stockholm European Council invited the Council and the Commission to develop by 2002 indicators on the provision of care facilities for children and other dependants and on family benefit systems.

According to Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the delivery of health services and medical care practices in the health system is a matter of national competence and does not fall within the competence of the Community.

(2001/C 364 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1180/01 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Plan Colombia

Would the Commission provide a detailed breakdown of the nature of the EU’s € 105 million development assistance package to Colombia?

In light of the resolution on Colombia adopted by Parliament on 1 February 2001, would the Commission confirm that EU assistance to that country is entirely separate from the US sponsored Plan Colombia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2001)

The Commission has officially announced that the amount of aid reserved for the Colombian peace process, in terms of new commitments, will be € 105 million for the period 2001-2006. A provision of around € 6 million per year should be added to this amount to take into account the contribution of the budgets non-programmable lines (European Community’s Humanitarian Office (ECHO), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), Refugees, etc.). The total amount resulting could therefore be estimated to be € 140 million. C 364 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

This amount has been divided between the following four axes which represents the internal articulation of a larger Community (Commission and Member States) support programme for the peace process worth more than € 330 million:

 Axe 1: concerns actions aimed at promoting the respect of the specific agreements as well as the construction of peace in the ‘meeting area’, in the ‘distension area’ (demilitarised zones where the peace dialogue with the two principal components of the ‘guerrilla’, respectively the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), will take place) and in surrounding areas of these two zones.

The Community provision foreseen for this axe is € 60 million. With this amount the Community will promote actions aimed at the establishment of ‘Peace Laboratories’, in the ‘meeting’ and ‘distension’ areas as well in the surrounding areas.

The function of the ‘Peace Laboratories’ is to anticipate, in the designated areas, the effects of peace and in this way to provide feedback on the negotiation process.

In order to establish the ‘Peace Laboratories’, the Community will finance two important integral development projects (each of them worth € 30 million). Their purpose will be to strengthen the local public institutions (different levels of local government), to consolidate the leading role of the groups promoting peace, to identify the sustainable development potential, and to support alternative development in the zones where ‘concerted manual eradication’ of illegal crops will take place.

 Axe 2: concerns actions aimed at strengthening the national reform policies and achieving the aims set at the time of the negotiations.

Community provision: € 25 million. The actions envisaged under this axe aim at financing the implementation of studies and pilot projects which will make it possible to check the hypotheses of national policy reforms set during the peace negotiations (actions foreseen to support reforms in the ‘Agricultural policy’ and in the ‘Judicial system’).

 Axe 3: concerns actions aimed at strengthening the respect of human rights and encouraging a peaceful culture.

Community provision: € 13 million (Budget line Human Rights and Democratisation). The actions envisaged will be designed to promote in Colombian civil society, social and cultural processes which have a positive influence on the peace negotiations.

 Axe 4: concerns actions aimed at reducing the social impact of the conflict and envisaging its possible expansion to other critical areas in the country.

Community provision: € 42 million (programmable and non-programmable budget lines).

The purpose of the foreseen actions is:

 to promote the social and productive reintegration process of the social groups directly affected by or involved in the conflict (displaced, former combating minors, wounded, demobilised);

 to reduce the critical factors which, on a social (marginalisation, drug consumption) or territorial level (underdevelopment of areas with low conflict intensity) can worsen and extend the conflict;

 to support alternative development in the zones where ‘concerted manual eradication’ of illicit crops will take place.

As to whether the Union package will be kept separate from ‘Plan Colombia’, the Commission would like to re-iterate it’s position: the Union’s reservations about some aspects of the Plan Colombia are well known to President Pastrana and to his government. And the Commission does not intend to take part in any initiative with a military dimension. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/55

(2001/C 364 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1184/01 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Aid to Afghanistan

According to recently published information the Commission has approved € 3 million of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan.

According to the same sources the purpose of that aid is to safeguard the supply of medical and food aid to the most vulnerable inhabitants of Kabul and other cities.

Afghanistan is currently in a highly precarious situation, particular as regards the lack of respect for human rights.

In view of the above, could the Commission specify what action it has taken in order to ensure that the € 3 million in question actually reach the most vulnerable people in the country’s major cities?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2001)

The Commission has made substantial donations of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan in recent years. In 1999, the European Community’s Humanitarian Office (ECHO) allocated € 19 million addressing the needs of the victims of drought and ongoing conflict. From the budget line to aid uprooted people in Asia and Latin America, the Directorate general for External Relations (RELEX) allocated € 27,5 million in 1999 and € 16,5 million in 2000 to assist Afghan Internally Displaced People (IDP) and Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran.

In February 2000, ECHO allocated € 2,5 million for IDPs in Afghanistan and Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Moreover, an intervention plan amounting to € 13 million is in the process of being completed. Operations address mainly the general food insecurity in the country as well as assistance to displaced people.

The aid provided aims to alleviate the suffering of people affected by drought and civil conflict mainly through food security operations in urban and rural areas, provision of water (wells), primary health care, a nutritional programme for women and children and emergency assistance programmes for IDPs (tents, blankets …).

These essentially humanitarian operations are implemented through operational partners such as non- governmental organisations (NGOs), international organisations, and the Red Cross family and United Nations (UN) agencies. Following ECHO’s mandate which specifically envisages support to the most vulnerable, the choice of operations to be financed is mainly guided by the focus of activities on those most in need and by the inclusion in the proposed operations of mechanisms such as monitoring provisions, selection criteria, pre-assessment and ex-post evaluation indicators, to ensure that those targeted for aid are actually reached. Furthermore, ECHO has field experts in the country who also follow very closely the ongoing projects to ensure correct delivery of aid.

Finally, the Member of the Commission responsible for Development and Humanitarian aid is planning a mission to Afghanistan in September 2001 to get a direct impression of the situation and the Commission’s humanitarian response. C 364 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1191/01 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission (19 April 2001)

Subject: Use of an industrial site reclaimed through EU aid

The author of this question firstly wishes to stress that the Commission has taken more than four months to give an  incomplete  answer to his Question E-2807/00 (1) regarding the use of an industrial site reclaimed by means of EU aid. The question concerned whether an international industrial park, the infrastructure of which has been developed with the help of significant Community funds, may be reassigned to be used for the building of a state school, important though the latter may be from Luxembourg’s point of view.

In other words, can Community funds be used to redevelop land the ultimate intended use of which is no longer that which justified the Commission’s contribution?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (27 July 2001)

As the Commission informed the Honourable Member in September 2000, in order to answer his Written Question E-2807/00 (1) the competent authorities needed to be contacted and this took some time.

The purpose of investments to which the Commission has contributed must continue to apply throughout the duration of the programme and, where possible, until the goals set out therein have been achieved.

In accordance with Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2082/93 (2), the Commission can only reduce or suspend assistance in respect of the operation or measure concerned if an examination reveals an irregularity or a significant change affecting the nature or conditions for the implementation of the operation or measure for which the Commission’s approval has not been sought.

In the case in point, the goals set out in the programme have been attained. (By the end of 1997, some 1 561 jobs had been created on the Luxembourg side of the European Development Pole, the target set being only 1 000.) Under the circumstances, the aim of the Community financial assistance has been met and one cannot object where the use made of the facilities benefiting from the aid changes over time and in line with the Member State’s needs and priorities.

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 3. (2) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 20.

(2001/C 364 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1193/01 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission (19 April 2001)

Subject: Dependence of civil society organisations on Community funding

In December 2000, in an audit report on the CLONG, the liaison committee of development NGOs vis-à- vis the EU, doubts were expressed concerning the sound management of funds provided by the Commission.

The same report showed that the CLONG’s past activities were financed as to 85 % by funds from the Community budget. One is entitled to wonder how objective are the opinions of a civil society body which is almost entirely dependent on the institution it is supposed to monitor critically. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/57

Are there other civil society organisations (liaison committees, etc) receiving assistance from the Commission? Which ones? Are these organisations dependent to the same degree as the CLONG?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

In Part A of the budget, various lines in Chapter A-30 finance organisations or projects which aim to promote the concept of the European civil society. At the end of May each year, the Commission sends to Parliament a report on these organisations, and in particular the level of co-financing. In line with the Remarks on Article A-302, A-303 and A-304, the Commission requires these organisations to be co- financed externally at the rate of 20 %.

In addition, a number of European level networks of non-governmental organisations receive funding on the basis of other lines in the Community budget, especially in the social field. This funding is provided on the basis that many such networks have experience and expertise in contributing to the development of European policies in particular by ensuring that the opinions of members of disadvantaged or discriminated groups are properly taken into account in their design, implementation and evaluation. Given the lack of alternative sources of funding for European level networks (as opposed to national level non-governmental organisations (NGOs), a contribution to the running costs of such networks can constitute a valuable asset in promoting effective social policy developments as this allows transnational exchange of information and best practice and thereby also contributes to the development of a truly European civil society.

Thus, on the basis of an amendment proposed by the Parliament (Cashman Report, A5-0259/2000, amendment 67) and accepted by the Commission and the Council, the Community Action Programme to combat discrimination (2001-2006) (Community Budget line B5-803) provides for the funding of the running costs of European networks of NGOs involved in the fight against discrimination up to a limit of 90 % of the total eligible costs. Such networks are required to compete for funds, with funding decisions being based both on the quality of their work programmes and their potential to contribute to policy development and on their ability to administer Community funds. Networks which receive Community subsidies are required to provide detailed accounts to the Commission on the use of the funds and are subject to regular audits.

Similarly, contributions are made to the running costs of network organisations dealing with the fight against Social Exclusion in the framework of the preparatory actions under Budget Line B3-4105.

Moreover, in its proposal of 26 July 2000 for recasting the Financial Regulation (1), the Commission proposed that the grants should be monitored. The proposal sets out in particular, the principles of co- financing and degressiveness which are designed precisely to reduce as far as possible the dependence of beneficiaries on Community funding (Articles 1 and 2). Exceptions to these principles should be possible under the legal basis or the budgetary Remarks for organisations whose purpose is of general European interest and international organisations.

With regard to the Honourable Member’s question about future relations with the Liaison Committee of European Development NGOs (CLONG) (financed by line B7-6000, see page 1251 of the 2001 General Budget), it must be stated that Parliament itself wished to see a high level of co-financing. In September 2001, Parliament’s Committee on Budgets introduced an amendment to the 2001 Budget increasing co- financing to 85 % which the Committee adopted. The Commission wanted to reduce co-financing for precisely the same reasons as those given by the Honourable Member. In a decision of 27 April 2001, the Commission, following an independent audit and in return for a reorganisation of CLONG’s operational methods, waived part of the amount to be recovered from CLONG. However, one of the conditions for this waiver is that CLONG will prepare a plan to reduce the Community co-financing level of its operating costs to 70 % in 2004. The purpose is to reduce CLONG’s dependence on Community financing and to increase its independence. The plan is expected in October 2001.

(1) COM(2000) 461 final. C 364 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1195/01 by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) and Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Non-vaccination policy on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD)

As the Commission is aware, there is concern throughout Europe at the large-scale killing of animals, most of them healthy, in response to the foot-and-mouth epidemic. The Dutch Minister of Agriculture is now seeking a review of the non-vaccination policy which dates from 1991, but has not received any support from the Commission.

From the early 1950s until the introduction of the European non-vaccination principle in 1991 the Netherlands pursued a policy whereby only cattle were vaccinated as a structural measure. Cattle often mixed with other livestock on farms. Nevertheless, the entire Dutch population of livestock was FMD-free from the 1950s on.

1. Is the Commission aware of these facts?

2. Does the Commission feel that, if applied Europe-wide, this approach would also keep European livestock FMD-free and

(a) if not, why does it think that what was true of the Netherlands could not apply on a European scale?

(b) if so, why does it base its arguments against abandoning the non-vaccination policy on the cost of vaccinating all 300 million livestock in the EU when it would suffice to vaccinate the 50 million or so cattle?

3. The Commission says that it takes six days after inoculation for the vaccination to become effective. Can the Commission indicate on what scientific research this claim is based?

4. The Commission says that abandoning the non-vaccination principle would mean the EU losing part of its sales market. Does the Commission agree that the current FMD epidemic and the mass cull used to control it are equally ineffective means of promoting sales of meat within and beyond the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

With reference to the first, second and fourth questions raised by the Honourable Members, the Commission would like to draw attention to the reply it gave to Written Question E-1143/01 by Mr Meijer (1), which includes information on the Community approach to the control of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and on the review of this policy by the Commission. This approach included the approval of both suppressive and preventive vaccination in the Netherlands.

With reference to the third question on scientific knowledge and research concerning the time needed for developing immunity after FMD vaccination, the information available to the Commission is summarised as follows.

Several days are needed in order for immunity against the FMD virus to develop after vaccination.

This period of time is dependent on certain variables, including:

 the type of vaccine used, with particular reference to the concentration of antigen (the FMD virus- derived material which induces specific immunity) and the adjuvants (other substances which further stimulate the immune system) in the vaccine;

 the virulence of the FMD virus strain and the infectious dose (e.g. the amount of virus) to which the animal may be exposed after vaccination; 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/59

 the species which are vaccinated (cattle, pigs, sheep, etc.);

 the age of the animals to be vaccinated and other individual factors.

Taking the above into account, on average a sufficient immunity develops in cattle from six to ten days after vaccination. The words ‘sufficient immunity’ above mean that, after exposure to the FMD virus, clinical signs of disease and virus replication are to a large extent reduced in a vaccinated cattle population when compared with a non-vaccinated one. Therefore, FMD may be more easily controlled and may eventually die out in the vaccinated population.

However, cases of FMD may still occur in recently vaccinated cattle, which may then spread FMD virus to non-vaccinated animals, as about three weeks are necessary to develop the maximum level of immunity. Indeed, the tests on efficacy of FMD vaccines required by the European Pharmacopoeia and the Office International of Epizootics (OIE) are carried out 21 days after vaccination. Vaccinated cattle may anyhow act as virus carriers after FMD virus exposure.

The above data are based on information provided by FMD-vaccine manufacturers and on several scientific papers which have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and/or presented and discussed in the annual meetings of the research group of the Commission for the Control of FMD of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which are substantially financed by the Commission.

In relation to the final question it is important to note that there was no support in either the Council or the Parliament for the introduction of generalised propalyactic vaccination at any stage in the course of the current FMD outbreak. This lack of support reflects the well identified limitations of such a policy which include, but are not limited to, trade implications. In this regard, the current outbreak has had an impact on trade, as many third countries have adopted temporary restrictions on imports from all or part of the Community. Nonetheless, it can be safely assumed that if a generalised vaccination policy was introduced there would currently be important and permanent restrictions on exports from the whole Community in countries which insist on imports only from countries which enjoy the status of FMD-free, without vaccination. These restrictions would also have an impact on Community internal production and marketing of animals and animal products. Member States which were not affected by the current outbreak would be most unwilling to see their disease status and exports compromised.

Finally, the Commission fully supports a review of the current approach towards vaccination, contrary to what is inferred in the Honourable Member’s question. The Commission welcomes, therefore, the forthcoming conference proposed under the Belgian Presidency on FMD and the implications and lessons from the current outbreak. The Commission will also provide an opportunity for a full review of the current approach in its forthcoming proposal on a Council Directive on FMD.

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 82.

(2001/C 364 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1202/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Threat to cultural monument from building project

Plans for the 2004 Olympic Games include the construction of a table-tennis arena covering a total area of 32 000 m2 on the boundary of the districts of Galatsi and Nea Ionia very close to the ‘Evmorfi Ekklisia’, a 12th century church classified as a rare cultural monument with exceptional frescos. C 364 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The agency responsible for Byzantine monuments has protested against the plan, describing it as uncivilised and fearing that, apart from the aesthetic damage caused by the building attracting some 6 000 spectators and thousands of cars, the impact in terms of the safety, stability and pollution of the monument will also be disastrous.

1. What steps will the Commission take to save the monument and the surrounding area, which has been earmarked for reafforestation?

2. Did the environmental impact assessment take account of the adverse effects of the project on this cultural monument? Were alternative proposals considered?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Article 151 (ex 128) of the EC Treaty gives the Community competence to encourage cultural cooperation between Member States and to support and supplement their action (financially if necessary) in the following areas:

 improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples;

 conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance;

 non-commercial cultural exchanges;

 artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector.

Accordingly, the issue raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the competence of the Community, but is a matter solely for the Member State.

As for the environmental aspects, Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (1), contains no precise reference to this type of installation. However, taking the view that this project could be considered an ‘urban development project’ (point 10(b) of Annex II to the Directive) the Commission sent the Greek authorities a letter on 15 February 2001 asking for details of the environmental assessment under way for the project.

The Greek authorities have yet to reply.

(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 364 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1205/01 by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Organisational and restructuring problems of the Finmeccanica group

The industrial restructuring plans for the Finmeccanica group have aroused serious concerns among the personnel of the group and its associates, Alenia Aerospazio, Alenia Difesa and Alenia Marconi Systems, an Italo-British joint venture for military electronics run by a British managing director.

The group has announced losses equivalent to ITL 230 billion in its Italian operation alone, in a situation that values production at 1 577 billion and the acquisition of new orders at 1 168 billion. It has produced a restructuring plan that would seriously affect Italian employment, with the redundancy of 400 employees, mainly in the factories at Gugliano and Fusaro.

Can the Commission confirm whether there is a dominant position in the British representative on the group’s internal management, which is otherwise established on the basis of parity? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/61

Can it also carry out an investigation of the asset-stripping plan in the research and production sectors of Alenia Marconi Systems, to prevent the creation of a new subsidiary having an adverse effect on Italian employment in the industry concerned?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 July 2001)

As regards the structure of control of the undertakings mentioned, the Commission found in its decision of 28 August 1998 in case M.1258 GEC Marconi/Alenia (1) that GEC-Marconi and Finmeccanica S.p.A. (through its wholly owned subsidiary, Alenia Systems S.p.A.) had each joint control over Alenia Marconi Systems within the meaning of Article 3(1)b of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (2) (‘Merger Regulation’).

The Commission believes that GEC Marconi’s rights in Alenia Marconi Systems have been transferred to BAe Systems as a result of the subsequent acquisition of GEC Marconi by BAe.

The Commission attaches the greatest importance to the social consequences of corporate restructuring but, apart from this assessment strictly limited to the Commission’s mandate under the Merger Regulation, the Commission has no information concerning the question raised and has no other legal base to undertake investigations concerning individual restructuring operations, unless the restructuring is financed by State aid.

(1) OJ C 306, 6.10.1998. (2) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989 as amended by OJ L 257, 21.9.1990.

(2001/C 364 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1208/01 by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Council (11 April 2001)

Subject: Closure of healthy undertakings

The brutal and cynical announcements of closures at Danone and Marks and Spencer demonstrate to those who might still have had any doubts that the era of the ‘mixed economy’ and the ‘European social model’ is dead.

Restructuring in undertakings as a result of genuine economic problems would be understandable, but it is not possible to accept restructuring in healthy and prosperous undertakings which have only one single objective: increasing the profits of those who own capital.

If agricultural crises can prompt our officials to take action, voluntary acts of ‘vandalism’ which, in the name of money, destroy entire families should cause our European leaders to act at least as decisively, particularly given that the absence of any reaction will cause this trend to accelerate in the future.

For this reason, I ask you most earnestly what you intend to do.

Reply (27 September 2001)

The Council is aware that restructurings of undertakings such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question may have serious economic and social consequences for employees and their families.

However, the legislative nature of the Council’s role  which is similar to the European Parliament’s  does not allow it to intervene in the implementation of European legislation, which is the responsibility of the Member States under the supervision of the Commission and, where necessary, the Court of Justice; nor does it allow the Council to comment on cases involving particular undertakings. C 364 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

In the first instance, it is for the judicial and social structures of the Member States concerned to resolve any disputes between employees and employers in cases of restructuring and to establish whether the undertakings have acted in accordance with national legislation and practices, including those based on Community law (for example, the Directive on collective dismissals (98/59/EC) and the Directive concerning a European Works Council or a procedure for informing and consulting employees in Community-scale undertakings (94/45/EC)).

The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that the Council is continuing to adapt and supplement the existing legislation. The proposal for a Directive on a European Company  which regulates the involvement of employees  will be adopted in the near future. Furthermore, on ll June 2001 the Council reached political agreement on the Directive on the informing and consulting of employees at national level.

(2001/C 364 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1213/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Council

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Protection of Orthodox Christian monasteries in Kosovo

Many monasteries and orthodox churches in Kosovo are being threatened with destruction by Muslim extremists and being targeted in the inter-ethnic conflict on the pretext of being a ‘vestige of Serb presence’.

The Holy Trinity Monastery in Musutiste has already been completely destroyed, while the following are seriously at risk: the Orthodox Monastery of Gracanica, the Mother of God Cathedral in Ljevisa, the Church of the Presentation of the Virgin in Lipljan, the Monastery of the Pec Patriarchate together with the churches of the Holy Apostles, Saint Mary Hodegetria and St Dominic, and the Decani Monastery.

In the light of the above, what measures does the Council intend to take to protect the monasteries and orthodox churches in Kosovo, which are part of the heritage of European and Christian civilisation?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council deplores the persistence of episodes of ethnic and religious intolerance in Kosovo and in particular the continuing threats to the integrity of Orthodox Christian monasteries in Serb areas. It reaffirms that it is strongly committed to an open, democratic, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural Kosovo that upholds tolerance and respect for all; the Council condemns all forms of violence, including the destruction of monuments that are part of the cultural heritage.

The Honourable Member is certainly aware that, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244, the EU is not responsible for security and public order in Kosovo, this being the task of UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo) police forces as well as KFOR (NATO force in Kosovo). The Council welcomes and applauds KFOR efforts to ensure permanent protection of the main religious monuments in Kosovo as well as regular patrolling of ‘secondary’ religious sites. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/63

(2001/C 364 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1214/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Protection of Orthodox Christian monasteries in Kosovo

Many monasteries and orthodox churches in Kosovo are being threatened with destruction by Muslim extremists and being targeted in the inter-ethnic conflict on the pretext of being a ‘vestige of Serb presence’.

The Holy Trinity Monastery in Musutiste has already been completely destroyed, while the following are seriously at risk: the Orthodox Monastery of Gracanica, the Mother of God Cathedral in Ljevisa, the Church of the Presentation of the Virgin in Lipljan, the Monastery of the Pec Patriarchate together with the churches of the Holy Apostles, Saint Mary Hodegetria and St Dominic, and the Decani Monastery.

In the light of the above, what measures does the Commission intend to take to protect the monasteries and orthodox churches in Kosovo, which are part of the heritage of European and Christian civilisation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

The protection of Serb Orthodox religious sites in Kosovo is a matter of considerable concern to the international community. The Commission strongly condemns the attacks that have taken place against such sites. The protection of religious sites in Kosovo is not, however, a matter for the Commission. The Commission welcomes the fact that the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo  KFOR  has devoted and continues to devote considerable troop resources to the round the clock protection of patrimonial sites in Kosovo, which underline the importance of this issue.

(2001/C 364 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1215/01 by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Council

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Lack of analytical index in Selected instruments taken from the Treaties

In reply to my Question P-0418/01 (1), the Commission informed me that the Council was responsible for the publication of the Selected instruments taken from the Treaties.

Can the Council therefore say why there is no analytical index in the paper version of the Selected instruments taken from the Treaties and why, in the Intranet version, protocols, declarations, instruments and institutional texts have been omitted? Furthermore, why is the latter version not available in the usual Word format?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 223.

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The version of the ‘Selected instruments taken from the Treaties’ provided on the Internet at http:// europa.eu.int/eur-lex/fr/treaties/index.html is identical to the printed version and contains all the annexes, i.e. all the protocols, declarations, other Treaties and acts and institutional texts. The format mentioned by the Honourable Member was not used for reasons of data security and software copyright. C 364 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

It is true that the ‘Selected instruments’ does not contain an analytical index. However, the Internet provides the possibility of searching by key words.

(2001/C 364 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1216/01 by Joke Swiebel (PSE) to the Commission

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Statistics of disabled people employed by the European institutions

Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation was tightened up by a European Parliament amendment and subsequently in the version adopted by the Council so as to extend the requirement of equal treatment to the European institutions as well. Does the Commission have statistics available (for both before and after the entry into force of the Directive) showing how many disabled people  broken down by disability  are on its staff? If so, would it be prepared to publish these figures when answering this question?

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Member States are required to implement the provisions of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation by 2 December 2003, with the possibility of an extension of three years, up to 2 December 2006, for the implementation of the provisions relating to age and disability.

The Commission adopted a Code of Good Practice for the employment of people with disabilities (1)in 1998. The Code provides clear statements of the European Institutions’ policy in relation to the employment of people with disabilities and gives guidelines on recruitment, career structure (mobility, training, retention of staff), working environment (accessibility of buildings and office equipment and furnishings) and information and awareness training for the members of selection boards.

In recruitment competitions for employment in the Commission, candidates are invited to advise the Commission of any special facilities they require in order to participate, such as examination papers in Braille, dictation of their responses to written papers, presence of a carer, or any other specific arrangement.

Following recruitment, the Commission does not maintain separate records of employees who have disabilities, because it is considered that recording such information could conflict with the personal interests of the relevant people. The Commission underlines that the same career path is open to all employees.

To provide general information for guidance, a non-exhaustive survey was conducted in 1999 and it showed that around 40 people with disabilities (ranging from perception to motor disabilities) were employed at that time in the Commission.

In its consultative Document on ‘Improving Working Arrangements and Career Prospects for People with Disabilities’ (2), published in the context of the current strategic Reform, the Commission says that it ‘should offer its staff at least the same opportunities and levels of protection in these areas as apply in Member States.’ In addition to a strong commitment to respect the 1998 Code, further measures are foreseen including broadening the scope of the Staff Regulations to ensure equal treatment for people with disabilities in relation to recruitment and employment, and mainstreaming the principle of non- discrimination throughout the entire personnel policy. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/65

The period of consultation with staff and staff representatives on this and associated documents will end in the near future and the Commission will then adopt its policy, taking account of the constructive suggestions for development of policy that have been submitted. It is to be hoped that, where changes in the Staff Regulations are needed in order to ensure modernisation and improvement in policy, the support of the other Institutions, including Parliament, will be forthcoming.

(1) SEC(98) 1559/2. (2) SEC(2000) 2084/4.

(2001/C 364 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1221/01 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: EU aid to Colombia

Can the Commission confirm that an assistance package worth € 105 million is being granted to Colombia by the European Union?

Can the Commission also indicate the UK’s share of this package?

Will the European aid be kept wholly separate from any other aid packages, such as the USA’s Plan Colombia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2001)

The Union expressed its full political support for the peace process carried out under the aegis of President Pastrana. As a consequence, the Union is playing an increasing role in the support for the peace process and has decided to complement its efforts with a significant amount of aid.

The Community financial support package, as announced on 30 April 2001 at the recent third meeting of the Support Group for the peace process in Colombia, amounts to more than € 330 million. Several Member States have already announced generous contributions to this overall package. The actual contribution of the United Kingdom is not known to the Commission.

At the 30 April meeting, the Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations confirmed a Community contribution of € 140 million (€ 105 million of programmable aid and € 35 million of non- programmable aid) and announced that commitments of up to € 43 million will be made this year by the Commission.

The Community assistance strategy has four fundamental strands aiming to:

 establish ‘Peace Laboratories’ (this year, in the Magdalena Medio area to support the implementation of peace agreements, notably by fostering local institutions, civil actors promoting peace, economic and social development projects);

 address structural weaknesses (justice, land reform, environment);

 combat violence and human rights violations;

 relieve the social impact of conflict (displaced people; children involved in conflict and alternative development in areas where manual eradication of drugs crops takes place).

As to whether the Union’s package will be kept separate from ‘Plan Colombia’, the Commission would like to re-iterate its position: the Union’s reservations about some aspects of the Plan Colombia are well known to President Pastrana and to his Government. Furthermore, the Commission does not intend to take part in any initiative with a military dimension. C 364 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1234/01 by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Council

(11 April 2001)

Subject: Arms sales by Spain to Equatorial Guinea and EU Code of Conduct

A report by the Unesco study centre at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, just published, states that Spain sold substantial numbers of weapons to Equatorial Guinea in 2000. According to this report, commissioned by Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Intermón Oxfam and Médecins Sans Frontières (all of which NGOs are participating in the campaign ‘Adiós a las armas’ [‘A Farewell to Arms’]), 11 500 missiles were supplied to the value of approximately ESP 182 million.

Equatorial Guinea, as is stressed in the report submitted by Mr Gustavo Gallón Giraldo to the UN Commission on Human Rights and as is confirmed in the complaints made by numerous independent bodies, is under the yoke of a regime which systematically violates human rights and consciously denies democratic principles. It has not, to date, signed either the Convention against Torture or the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The author of this question was able to observe in person just over a month ago, in the course of a visit to Malabo and Bata, the failure of the regime of President Teodoro Obiang to respect human rights and democratic principles, despite his repeated promises to the contrary to several international partners, including the EU in the person of Commission President Romano Prodi, whom he met in September 2000.

In the face of these complaints, is the Council considering asking the Spanish government to supply a detailed explanation on the matter? Does the Council not agree with the author of this question that these sales of missiles are contrary to the principles of the EU’s Code of Conduct on arms exports to countries such as Equatorial Guinea which fail to respect human rights? Does the Council intend to ask the Madrid authorities to cease this trade, in compliance with the Code of Conduct, until such time as Equatorial Guinea becomes a genuine democracy?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The European Union’s position on arms exports is reflected in the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports adopted on 8 June 1998. The particular case raised by the Honourable Member has not been raised in the Council but decisions on whether to grant an export licence are taken by each Member State individually taking full account of the Code of Conduct and the criteria set out in it. The Code of Conduct does not provide for Member States to give any information to the Council about the grounds on which export licences are granted nor does it lie in the Council’s purview to pass judgement on any particular transaction. However, Member States are required every year to inform the Council about their arms exports; on this basis an annual report is produced which allows for a common assessment of the functioning of the Code.

(2001/C 364 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1247/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(27 April 2001)

Subject: Distortion of competition in the Belgian Federation by failure to comply with Directive 91/321/EC

In the Belgian Federation, Directive 91/321/EEC (1) of 14 May 1991 was transposed by the Royal Decree of 27 December 1993 on advertising for baby formula foods and the distribution of free samples. The directive partially puts into practice the international code of conduct on the marketing of substitutes for mother’s milk, drawn up by the World Health Organisation and Unicef and adopted by the General Assembly of the WHO in 1981. In reply to a question of interpretation by Senator Sabine de Bethune, 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/67

Mrs Magda Aelvoet, Federal Minister of Consumer Affairs, Public Health and the Living Environment stated on Thursday 22 March that the promotion campaigns by the manufacturers of baby formula foods are in conflict with the Decree. The distribution of free samples  and thus advertising for baby formulae  still seems to be a very common practice in Belgian maternity wards. This approach is not only unlawful, it is also in conflict with the EU Treaty (regarding distortion of competition), as well as going directly against the central aim of the WHO code, which is to promote breast feeding in the interest of public health.

Does the Council acknowledge that this approach by the producers of and traders in baby formulae conflicts with the EC Treaty and leads to a distortion of competition between the various maternity hospitals, manufacturers and traders? If so, what measures does the Council propose to take to deal with this distortion of competition? If not, what are the Council’s arguments for regarding the free distribution of baby formulae by manufacturers and traders in maternity hospitals as compatible with the EC Treaty in spite of the distortion of competition which it creates between the various maternity hospitals, manufacturers and traders?

(1) OJ L 175, 4.7.1991, p. 35.

Reply

(27 September 2001)

It is the role of the Commission, and not the Council, to monitor the implementation of Community legislation and to take appropriate action where such legislation may have been incorrectly or incompletely transposed into national legislation.

The Council can therefore take no position on the question raised, since it is a matter which falls under the competence of the Commission.

(2001/C 364 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1248/01 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Adulteration of food products

A few months ago I received a publication from the Commission entitled ‘Letter from the JRC’, which contained an extensive list of research activities carried out by the Commission in order to combat fraud, particularly in connection with the adulteration of wine.

Could the Commission say whether or not it is promoting any research activities into the detection of deodorised hazelnut oil used in the adulteration of olive oil?

Could it also say whether or not the Community’s research programme includes methods for detecting adulteration and other types of fraud involving skimmed milk, casein subsidies, butter and other dairy products?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

In addition to the activities of the European Office for Wine, Alcohol and Spirit drinks which addresses questions regarding the authenticity of wine and alcoholic beverages, the Commission through its Joint Research Centre (JRC) has been investigating various analytical methods for their suitability for quantification of foreign oils in olive oil since a few years. Preliminary work has been carried out with sophisticated methods, such as stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry or nuclear magnetic resonance. C 364 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

As those results demonstrated the capacity of such techniques for screening the adulteration of olive oil with hazelnut oil, a shared cost action project was recently initiated (financed by Directorate General for Research following a dedicated call published in October 1999), involving 14 laboratories from seven Member States besides the JRC. This project aims to consolidate the preliminary results and to elaborate other techniques. It started in January 2001 and has a duration of three years.

In addition to the project mentioned above on the determination of hazelnut oil in olive oil, the Commission through its Measurements and Testing generic activity also finances a project on the determination of glycerol in wine and a project related to the development of sensors to control milk quality and detect some specific type of milk adulteration started in February 2001 (G6RD-CT2000-00420 anti-fraude milk ‘A Framilk’).

In June 2001 the Commission will review the results of another project financed by the Standards Measurements and Testing (SMT) programme and certify five new reference materials that are important tools for the detection of wine chaptalisation (authentication of wines and sugars).

The JRC laboratory also has experience in the elaboration of analytical methods in the field of dairy products. The JRC was a partner in two such shared-cost actions on the determination of added casein/ caseinate to cheese and development and validation of methods to determine the origin of milk, butter and cheese (Fourth framework programme for research and technological development, SMT programme; projects CT97-2208 and CT98-2236). It is not allowed to add these products to fresh cheese at all, but they can be added to cheese preparations by up to 5 %. As those products derive from skimmed milk and are therefore the same ingredients found in milk products, it has been demonstrated that this task is very challenging even when very sophisticated methods are applied.

Attention is also drawn to the fact that Commission Regulation (EC) No 213/2001 of 9 January 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards methods for the analysis and quality evaluation of milk and milk products and amending Regulations (EC) No 2771/1999 and (EC) No 2799/1999 (1) contains a comprehensive list of reference methods for the analysis of milk and milk products under the common market organisation. This list contains methods for the detection of adulterations developed by the Experts Group of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, e.g. methods for the detection of non-milk fat in milk fat, whey powder and buttermilk powder in milk powder or cows’ milk in cheeses from ewes’, goats’ and buffalo’s’ milk. Other methods are presently being developed by the Experts Group to reinforce controls. These methods play an essential role in the control procedures operated in the framework of the different aid schemes in the milk sector.

The JRC is currently also carrying out the validation of methods for the determination of fat content in spreadable fats (mixtures of butter and margarine).

An overview of recent activities of the JRC in the field of food products is available from the Food Products Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection of the Joint Research Centre.

(1) OJ L 37, 7.2.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1252/01 by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Council

(27 April 2001)

Subject: Aid to Namibia and fundamental rights

Namibia is a country which benefits from European funds, being allocated a sum of € 52 million over the period 1996-2000. The second priority of the agreement between the European Union and the Namibian Government is the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law, as well as respect for 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/69

human rights and fundamental freedoms. What is the Council’s view of the statements made by the President of Namibia, Mr Sam Nujoma, and his decision to detain and deport from the country all gays and lesbians on the grounds that Namibia’s constitution does not allow homosexuality?

This is in breach of the values and fundamental principles of the European Union, Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, legislation on development cooperation and the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Is the Council planning any action to denounce this flagrantly discriminatory measure?

Will the Council inform the Namibian Government that this decision violates fundamental human rights and contradicts the principles and basic values of the European Union?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council has made a démarche to the Namibian authorities concerning the human rights situation in the country. This démarche was followed up by the publication of a declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the EU on human rights in Namibia. This text clearly states the EU’s position on the threats and verbal attacks against minorities in Namibia which the EU finds unacceptable. The EU furthermore encourages the Government of Namibia to maintain its respect of human rights and to uphold the rule of law.

(2001/C 364 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1255/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(27 April 2001)

Subject: European Union attitude to the promotion of breast-feeding

Directive 91/321/EEC (1) of 14 May 1991 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to infant formulae and follow-on formulae constitutes a version of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes drawn up by the World Health Organisation and Unicef and adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981.

In its Resolution 49.15, adopted in 1996, the WHO urges the adoption of accompanying measures to prohibit the promotion of breast-milk substitutes for children under the age of six months so that mothers are encouraged to continue breastfeeding. Under normal circumstances, a new resolution would have been adopted last year, but the debate about the maintenance or scrapping of the six-month limit was held over to next May’s Assembly.

Will the Council argue at the forthcoming World Health Assembly for accompanying measures to prohibit the promotion of breast-milk substitutes for children under the age of six months, as called for in Resolution 49.15? If not, why will it not implement Resolution 49.15 of the World Health Organisation, given the significance of breast-feeding for health?

(1) OJ L 175, 4.7.1991, p. 35.

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Resolution referred to by the Honourable Member of Parliament has been adopted by consensus at the 5th World Health Assembly this May. The Assembly welcomed the EU stance on this matter. C 364 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The WHO resolution explicitly urges Member States to ensure global compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk substitutes and subsequent WHA Resolutions, with regard to labelling as well as all forms of advertising and commercial promotion.

The responsibility for implementing such a Resolution, as is the case with all WHO Resolutions, lies with the Member States of WHO.

(2001/C 364 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1266/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Special regional planning studies

Further to my Written Question No E-3458/00 (1) concerning the special regional planning studies for the Cyclades and the Commission’s answer, I would raise the same matter in relation to the island of Paros.

In a complaint to the Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works, the Architects’ Association of the Cyclades claims that the Central Council for Planning, Development and the Environment discussed the adoption of the special regional planning study for the island of Paros in early March without taking account of the proposals for environmental protection contained in the original study funded under the Community’s Envireg initiative and measure 4.2 of the ‘Environment’ operational programme. The ‘Ayios Nikolaos’ Society for the Conservation of Paros has also submitted a detailed official complaint to the Commission’s Directorate-General for the Environment and Regional Development, accusing the Greek authorities of infringing Community rules on the funding of the special regional planning study for Paros, as well as Community Directives 85/337/EEC (2), 79/409/EEC (3) and 92/ 43/EEC (4). Furthermore, the recorded minutes of a recent official meeting of the Paros Municipal Council reveal that the study awaiting approval by the Central Council for Planning, Development and the Environment designates only half of the coastline at Molos as protected instead of its entire length, as proposed by the study originally funded by the Commission.

The Commission:

1. What action will it take in response to such serious alleged infringements of Community law and the options chosen by the Greek authorities, which are at odds with the purpose of the funding, i.e. environmental protection?

2. Will it allow the plan to build a  mainly commercial  port at Molos on the island of Paros to go ahead despite the proposals to declare it a total conservation area and the absence of a feasibility study for such a project?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 129. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. (4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

With regard to the implementation of the regional planning studies part-financed principally under the Regional Environment Initiative (Envireg), the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Question E-3458/00 (1). 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/71

The Commission is currently examining the complaint to which the Honourable Member refers. However, at this stage, no violation of Community law has been established, since the region to which the complainants refer does not appear to form part of the protected areas. Moreover, its responsibilities and the respect for the principle of subsidiarity do not permit the Commission to take a view on whether or not amendment of a regional planning study was justified.

According to the information received from the Greek authorities, the project in question is not part- financed under the Structural Funds and so the Commission is not consulted about its planning and implementation.

If this project is proposed for part-financing, the Commission will ask the Greek authorities to respect the Community and national legislation in force, in particular as regards environmental protection.

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 129.

(2001/C 364 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1277/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(2 May 2001)

Subject: Animal slaughter and pollution

According to the news, in the United Kingdom the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease has led to the slaughter of more than 500 000 animals. The slaughtered animals have been buried in mass graves or burnt on pyres. Apparently another 200 000 heads of cattle await the same fate.

Can the Commission state:

 what measures have been taken to prevent risks of environmental pollution (of the air and ground water);

 whether the people living in the areas concerned are being protected from the consequences of any such pollution;

 whether there are any guarantees for other European countries that products from potentially contaminated regions have been controlled, both for the risk of direct contamination (polluted water) and that of indirect contamination (products cultivated on polluted land or which have been irrigated with polluted water);

 whether it will inform Parliament in detail on the environmental situation after the slaughter of such an incredible number of cattle?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

As a part of controlling the foot-and-mouth epidemic a large number of animal carcasses have to be disposed of. Because there is no risk-free approach it is essential that the disposal of the animal carcasses is handled with proper regard to environmental protection and to public health and that the necessary measures are taken as part of the control strategy. The measures taken by the British Department of Health to prevent risks of environmental pollution are available on: http://www.doh.gov.uk/fmdguidance/ fmdsummary.pdf (guidance on the building of pyres, guidance on the use of materials for pyres, guidance on ash disposal arising from pyres and mobile incinerators, …).

The issue of animal waste is addressed at Community level by several directives covering environmental and veterinary aspects. Specifically with regard to the disposal of animal carcasses, the Commission has put forward a proposal for a Regulation (1) on animal by-products not intended for human consumption designed to amend current legislation and to create a comprehensive legal framework. This draft Regulation lays down animal and public health rules for the processing and/or disposal of this waste. C 364 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

To protect the people who live and work in the areas affected by foot-and-mouth disease the British Department of Health has developed a ‘Public Health Guidance’ and has sent it to the people in these areas. This guidance is available on the News Co-ordination Centre web site: http://www.co-ordination.gov.uk/ foot_leaflet.htm. In addition a risk assessment of the health effects of pyres has been made entitled ‘Foot and Mouth: Effects on Health of Emissions from Pyres Used for Disposal of Animals’ which can be found on http://www.doh.gov.uk/fmdguidance/pyrereport.pdf

As soon as reliable and precise data are available, the Commission is prepared to inform the Parliament on its request on the environmental situation after the burning of animal carcasses and to see whether additional measures are necessary.

(1) OJ C 96 E, 27.3.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1281/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Problems associated with drought and lack of water for irrigation in Greece

In the coming months, farms in many areas of Greece will be faced with a severe shortage of water for irrigation owing to the scant amount of rainfall during the winter and the failure to carry out any related large or small-scale projects (e.g. reservoirs, aquifer enrichment). The exceptionally high unseasonable temperatures (37 °C) in the last ten days of March and the warm wind which affected certain regions (Thessaly and Central Greece) have already severely damaged cereal crops and, in some cases, devastated the entire production.

Bearing in mind that drought affects not only agricultural production and farmers’ incomes but also the environment and that it is, therefore, imperative to take immediate measures:

1. Has the Commission been informed by Greece about potential drought? Have the Greek authorities submitted any particular request for measures to deal with the situation and alleviate the repercussions?

2. What plans have been made under the 3rd CSF for structural measures to improve and bring down the cost of water resource management?

3. Will compensation be paid to those farmers whose cereal production was damaged by the high temperatures in March?

4. Will measures be taken to assist those farmers who, owing to the shortage of water for irrigation, will either be forced not to grow or to restrict their crops, or will suffer a loss of production and income? (Exemption from the co-responsibility levy for small farmers; application of Article 13(b) of Regulation (EC) 1750/1999 (1) etc.)?

(1) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

1. The Commission has received no recent specific information on the drought in Greece and the Greek authorities have not yet submitted any specific request of the sort referred to by the Honourable Member. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/73

2. The Community support framework (CSF) for Greece for the 2000-2006 programming period includes a series of measures to improve management of water resources there, principally in Chapter II, page 56. The full text may be found at www.inforegio.cec.eu.int. Moreover, the rural development operational programme in that CSF and the regional programmes include measures to reduce demand for irrigation water and promote its rational management. Measures to encourage extensive farming with less irrigation and better environmental protection through the management of inputs and natural resources, including water, are also provided for under the agri-environmental measures in the rural development plan part-financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section.

3. The EAGGF has no legal basis to use part-financed measures to offset the losses of income caused by the drought,. However, the Commission could examine State aid for that purpose under communication (1) establishing the guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector, if the Greek authorities notified such an aid under Articles 87 (formerly Article 92) and 88 (formerly Article 93) of the EC Treaty.

4. The reduced harvest and income following the drought cannot in themselves justify agri- environmental aid under Article 13(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), because a condition of this Regulation is the preservation of plant genetic resources adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion. On this basis, the rural development plan approved by the Commission in September 2000 includes a list of species and of threatened plant varieties which may not be extended.

The arrangements for the coresponsability levy were terminated in 1992 when the common agricultural policy was reformed. Since they were increased under Agenda 2000, the direct area aids introduced by that reform, which represent approximately a third of total income, help stabilise the incomes of producers of arable crops through their fixed character and independence of the harvest.

(1) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000.

(2001/C 364 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1284/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: EU direct tax

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt recently called for a direct EU tax levied on all citizens. This view is supported by the Belgian Finance Minister, Didier Reynders, who commented at a Belgian Presidency tax seminar on 26 March 2001 that Mr Verhofstadt would have the opportunity to raise this issue in the Council meeting in December at Laeken.

Budget Commissioner Michaele Schreyer told the Danish paper Politikien in March that she thought it was a good idea and believed it would make EU politicians more responsible in relation to citizens. She suggested a tax might take the form of a tax on interest from savings placed in another country, or might be an EU CO2 tax, and added that President Prodi was also interested in this idea.

1. Could the Commission please state if it has any plans to introduce such a tax on EU citizens, in any of the forms described, or in any other form?

2. Could the Commission please state if it has discussed this subject in internal meetings, or with the members of the Belgian Government?

3. Does the Commission take the view of the Budget Commissioner that such a tax would make politicians more responsible to citizens?

4. What position will the Commission take in the run-up to the December meeting in Laeken, where a direct EU tax might be on the agenda? C 364 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Following the discussions which took place within the framework of Agenda 2000, the Council adopted on 29 September 2000 a new decision concerning the system of the own resources of the Communities (2000/597/EC, Euratom). This decision will enter into force as soon as the ratification procedures by the national parliaments are completed.

This decision stipulates (Article 9) that the Commission will undertake, before 1 January 2006, a general review of the own resources system accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals, in the light of all relevant factors. Among these factors is mentioned the possibility of modifying the structure of the own resources by creating new autonomous own resources. In a statement attached to the decision, and at the request of the Parliament, the Commission committed itself to presenting the results of this review before the end of 2004.

An objective could be to replace the existing financing system of the European Union’s budget with one or more European taxes without imposing an additional financial burden upon European citizens. The Commission therefore welcomes all suggestions put forward by the Member States, which could encourage the debate on these questions, such as the remarks made recently by the Prime Minister of Belgium with regard to the European Council in Laeken to which the Honourable Member refers. The Parliament expressed a similar view in its resolution of 5 July 2001 on the situation of own resources in the European Union in 2001.

The Commission has not formally made any specific proposals at this stage. Exchanges of views and of information could take place on this subject within the framework of the usual contacts between the Commission and the authorities of the Member State that holds the Presidency of the Council of the Union.

(2001/C 364 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1285/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: VAT

1. Could the Commission confirm that it continues to hold the definitive country of origin VAT system as its long-term goal? Does the Commission believe that greater VAT harmonisation is desirable?

2. Could the Commission confirm that the UK’s zero rating system, currently used for children’s clothes and newspapers, is still regarded as a ‘transitional measure pending the adoption of the common VAT system’, as expressed by Commissioner Bolkestein in his response to Parliamentary Question E-1635/00 (1) of 5 July 2000?

3. Could the Commission confirm that accession countries are expected to introduce full VAT rates on items such as children’s clothes, shoes and nappies on joining the European Union?

4. Could the Commission explain the work currently being undertaken in the field of VAT, and does it include a new work programme?

5. If so, what are the Commission’s priorities under the new work programme, and has the programme been discussed by the Member States?

6. Has the Commission made any progress on any of the potential future priorities set out in COM(2000) 348:

 Treatment of subsidies, public authorities and services in the public interest,

 Treatment of financial and insurance services, 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/75

 Court judgements,

 Rules on supplies of goods,

 Closer administrative cooperation,

 Coordination of customs and taxation,

 Review of the place of taxation of services in general (Article 9),

 Rationalisation of derogations under Article 27,

 Rationalisation of options, rights and derogations,

 Rationalisation of VAT rates,

 The scheme applying to small businesses?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 92.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2001)

1. As stated in its Communication to the Council and the Parliament of 7 June 2000 on the New VAT Strategy (1), the Commission considers that the Internal Market would function better with a VAT system based on taxation in the Member State of origin rather than with the transitional system in force at the moment. Therefore, the Commission has not questioned the definitive system as a long-term Community goal. However, the Commission considers that there are a number of areas in the existing VAT arrangements where further harmonisation is necessary in the short term in order to improve the functioning of the Internal Market.

2. The answer given to Written Question E-1635/00 by the Honourable Member on the British’s zero rating system used for children’s clothing and newspapers is still valid.

3. The Commission can confirm that the accession countries when joining the Union are expected to introduce the standard VAT rate on items such as children’s clothes, shoes and nappies. However, for the moment one candidate country has requested a transitional period on such items, which is currently being negotiated in the Council.

4. A detailed explanation of the work currently being undertaken in the field of VAT is set out in the above mentioned Communication. Under this new strategy two directives have been adopted by the Council (Council Directive 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000 amending the sixth VAT Directive 77/388/ EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes  Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (2), as regards the determination of the person liable for payment of value added tax (3) and Council Directive 2001/41/EC of 19 January 2001 amending the sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) with regard to the length of time during which the minimum standard rate is to be applied (4)). In addition, a political agreement has been reached on the proposal for improving mutual assistance on recovery and work is currently continuing on several other proposals in the Council.

5. and 6. In March 2001, the Commission presented to the Member States, in the Tax Policy Group, an evaluation of the progress concerning the new strategy and identified new priorities for 2001. In this context the Commission plans to present new proposals involving the recasting of the sixth VAT Directive, the place of supply of goods and the special arrangements for travel agents. In addition, in order to be able to put forward further formal proposals in 2002/2003, the Commission is also planning to initiate preliminary work on other subjects such as the treatment of subsidies, activities of public authorities and services in the general interest; the co-ordination of customs and taxation rules; rationalisation of derogations under Article 27 of the 6th Directive, follow-up to Simpler legislation for the internal market C 364 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(SLIM) and a revision of provisions on the place of taxation of services. Nevertheless, the presentation of further new proposals by the Commission will largely depend on the progress made by the Council in adopting the proposals already tabled.

(1) COM(2000) 348 Final. (2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. (3) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000. (4) OJ L 22, 24.1.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1286/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Vehicle tax

In his speech ‘Taxation and competition: the realisation of the internal market’ in Hoevelaken on 17 March 2000, Commissioner Bolkestein highlighted the issue of vehicle taxation, commenting:

Turning to the field of excises, you have, for example, the problem with registration taxes for cars. If you buy a new car here in the Netherlands, you will pay a registration tax. But then if you move to live and work in another Member State and apply for number plates, in 11 Member States you are going to be asked to pay another registration tax. And there is no system of refunds or relief!

Could the Commission state if it has any plans to harmonise ‘registration tax’ or if it has any other plans to coordinate vehicle taxation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2001)

As the Honourable Member is certainly aware the Commission presented a Proposal for a Council Directive (1) in 1998, which has as an overall objective the bringing of the tax treatment of vehicles, which accompany private individuals moving from one Member State to another, more into line with the concept and principles of the Single Market. Situations like double payment of registration tax or payment of excessive amounts of vehicle taxes, which have been the subject of repeated complaints by citizens or of judgements by the Court of Justice, have also been addressed in this proposal. Member States discussed this proposal only once, in February 1999, and since then it has remained on the Council’s table. The Parliament gave its favourable opinion on this proposal in June 1999.

The Commission intends to present a Communication on vehicle taxation before the end of this year or early in 2002, in order to launch a discussion with Member States, Community Institutions and other stakeholders on future options for action at Community and national levels. Issues such as double payment or non-refund of registration tax paid, in particular when private motor vehicles are moved permanently to another Member State, will, inter alia, be dealt with in this Communication.

The Commission will wait until the outcome of this discussion is known, before taking any initiative in this area.

In the meantime, the Commission has, in application of Article 1 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC (2), insisted on the distinction between consumption taxes on one hand and duties paid during registration and periodical taxes linked to use of the vehicle in the interior of a Member State on the other. The Commission is of the view that only periodical taxes linked to the use of a vehicle in the interior of a Member State and duties paid during the registration (registration fees), fall under Article 1 paragraph 2 of Council Directive 88/183/EEC. The registration fees have to be limited to the approximate costs of the services offered by the authorities in charge of registration. All other taxes charged by certain Member States because of the registration of a car, independently of their denomination, are considered by the 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/77

Commission as taxes covered by Article 1, paragraph 1 of Directive 83/183/EEC. According to this provision, in the particular case of transferring normal residence, an exemption from these taxes has to be granted. As a minority of Member States do not respect this obligation, the Commission has already opened or is prepared to examine opening infringement procedures against them.

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998. (2) Council Directive 83/183/EEC, of 28 March 1983, on exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals (OJ L 105, 23.4.1983).

(2001/C 364 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1296/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Impact of the trade policy on the Common Agricultural Policy

The EU’s trade and development policies are increasingly geared towards drawing up agreements with third countries on trade concessions.

Clearly, the Community’s interest lies in encouraging exports of hi-tech products of high added value, whilst in most cases the countries benefiting from the above-mentioned concessions tend to export agricultural products.

Can the Commission provide the following information:

1. the list of all unilateral tariff concessions not subject to contract (GSP), as well as the bilateral and multilateral tariff concessions currently in force;

2. the quantity of agricultural and fisheries products which may be imported under such schemes and that which is actually imported;

3. the direct and indirect burden of this on the Community budget and on the EAGGF in particular;

4. in the interests of transparency, why are these costs not entered under a specific budget heading, which would highlight the EU’s openness to third countries whilst at the same time highlighting the cost to the agricultural sector of the trade policy?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Trade concessions are granted by the Community to third countries as there is an economic interest for the Community to foster trade with a certain region so as to increase economic advantages for both partners. Moreover increased trade flows can contribute to the development and stabilisation of third countries and facilitate their integration into the world economy.

Implications for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are always carefully considered before a decision is made.

1. EU tariff concessions currently in force:

 Generalised tariff preferences (GSP): The Community’s scheme of GSP provides preferential market access to all developing countries and economies in transition. Beneficiaries of the Community’s GSP are listed in Annex III of the GSP Regulation (1). This list includes 146 independent countries and 25 dependent or administered territories. To the extent that tariff preferences under the Cotounu agreement are more favourable, African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries are likely to use rather the latter. The GSP offers four different arrangements available to different countries and including different products. Preferences are expressed as a percentage by which most favoured nations (MFN) duty rates are reduced, according to the degree of ‘sensitivity’ of each product. Since 1995, all GSP C 364 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

preferences are granted without quantitative restrictions. Under the general arrangements, preferences tariff range from 85 % of the normal Common Customs Tariff (CCT) for very sensitive products to duty free access for non-sensitive products. The Commission on 12 June 2001 adopted a proposal for revision to the Generalised Scheme of Tariff Preferences for the years 2002 to 2004. This regulation is designed to simplify the GSP regime, restore the level of its benefits and target them more effectively in the interests of developing countries. It is also intended to improve the effectiveness of special incentives to promote core labour and environmental standards.

The special arrangements to support countries combating drug trafficking and production provide additional preferences to the countries of the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and later Venezuela), and of the Central American Common Market (Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador) as well as to Panama. The beneficiary countries of these arrangements benefit from duty-free access for all industrial products included in the general arrangements as well as for certain agricultural exports (listed in Annex VII of the GSP regulation) not included in the latter. The Republic of Moldova benefits of the special incentive arrangements for the protection of labour rights under which additional preferences are granted. These additional preferences almost double those available under the general arrangements (see article 10 of the GSP regulation).

The ‘Everything But Arms’ initiative opens the Community market duty free and without any quantitative restrictions to all least developed countries (amendment to the GSP regulation). The only exceptions are arms, which have never been included in the GSP, as well as sugar, rice and bananas, which will be liberalised for those countries over the next eight years.

 ACP Economic Partnership: The Agreement signed in February 2000 forwards non-reciprocal trade preferences awarded under Lomé for an additional eight years, during which time the Community intends to negotiate reciprocal Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with sub groups of the ACP countries.

 Asymmetrical trade preferences for the Balkans: The Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 of 18 September 2000 (subsequently extended to Serbia) provides for the extension and improvement of the Community autonomous trade preferences for Western Balkan countries. The regulation brings the duty free access of the imports of these countries to 95 %. The decision abolishes remaining tariff ceilings for certain industrial products originating in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia and improves access for agricultural products including processed agricultural and fishery products originating in these countries.

 The Europe Agreements: The Europe Agreements concluded with accession countries aim to establish a free-trade area between the Community and the associated countries, on the basis of reciprocity but in an asymmetric manner. As a result of this process, industrial products from the associated countries have had virtually free access to the Community since the beginning of 1995, with restrictions in some sensitive sectors, such as agriculture and textiles.

There are a number of other Community trade agreements containing tariff concessions, e.g. the free trade agreement with Mexico which entered into force in July 2000, the Agreements with the Mediterranean countries that foresee the gradual establishment of a free trade area with 2010 as a target date, the Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement with South Africa which provides for the establishment of a Free Trade Area, through an asymmetric tariff dismantling over a transitorial period of 10 years for the Community and 12 years for South Africa.

More comprehensive information on bilateral and multilateral tariff concessions will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

2. Products imported by the Member States under preferential schemes:

 Quantities imported under quota and benefiting from tariff concessions are monitored by the relevant Commission’s services. In particular for sensitive products like fruit and vegetables a database providing a daily updated level of use of preferential quota is available for public consultation on Internet. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/79

 In many cases actual imports are far below attributed quotas. This is due to various reasons related to the lack of capacity by the exporting country to comply to minimal quality requirements for selling on Community markets, but also to the weakness of the export and trading infrastructure.

 Finally, considering that the Community is at the same time the biggest importer and the biggest exporter of agricultural products, Community concessions to third countries should be appreciated in the light of reciprocal concessions given by third countries to the Community in agricultural trade. These concessions facilitate improved penetration of Community agricultural commodities on foreign domestic markets.

 For fishery products a chart is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

3. and 4. The financial impact of trade concessions in agriculture:

 In 1997 (latest figures available), the total value of agricultural imports under the GSP amounted to € 9 480 million. The loss of budgetary revenue during that year was € 473 million.

 The Commission has no other aggregated data regarding the cost of trade concessions to the Community budget. However, whenever a proposal for trade concessions is introduced by the Commission, an impact study is made for each traded product, in particular as regards budget costs. The financial impact is reflected in the financial appendix that is annexed to the proposal. However, the actual cost of trade concessions cannot be quantified in advance, -except for the full volume of a tariff quota concession, as it depends on the amount of actual trade that takes place under the trade regimes at preferential conditions.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December 1998 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 (OJ L 357, 30.12.1998, p. 1).

(2001/C 364 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/01 by Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE) and Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Waste problem  construction of a waste screening plant in Palomonte

In the Campania region waste disposal has become an emergency of unprecedented seriousness. None of the Italian authorities, both national and regional (most of whom of the centre-left) have ever carried out careful surveys of the area to find more suitable sites for the disposal and screening of waste.

Can the Commission say on what basis the decision was made to build the screening plant in the municipality of Palomonte, province of Salerno, given that such a decision conflicts with the following:

1. the area in question is an atypical industrial area considered to be a centre of the agri-foodstuffs industry and therefore highly unsuitable for the plant in question;

2. the building in question was intended for a different use;

3. the said building is already equipped for the production of foodstuffs, which means that the existing plant would have to be destroyed;

4. the project plainly conflicts with Community directives in that no environmental impact assessment has been carried out.

In the light of the above, will the Commission make representations to the competent bodies to ensure compliance with the legislation referred to in point 4? C 364 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

According to Council Directives 85/337/EECof 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) and 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), which has modified Directive 85/337/EEC, Member States are obliged to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Projects covered by the Directive are identified in the annexes.

In the opinion of the Commission, based on the information given by the Honourable Member, the work to which the question makes reference, a waste treatment plant, could fall within the scope of Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC, and, in particular, within categories 11c of Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC (Installations for the disposal of industrial and domestic waste, unless included in Annex I) and/or 11b of Annex II of Directive 97/11/EC (Installations for the disposal of waste  projects not included in Annex I).

Under Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments, projects falling within Annex II are to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. However, Member States are considered to be obliged to make a pre-assessment in order to establish whether Annex II projects need to be made subject to an EIA procedure. Under Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified, for Annex II projects, Member States are obliged to determine through a case-by-case examination or thresholds or by the setting of criteria whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

In order to identify the correct Community law to be applied, it is necessary to check when the request for development consent was submitted to the competent authority: projects whose requests for development consent were submitted to a competent authority before 14 March 1999 are governed by the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC (prior to its 1997 amendment).

The Commission has already opened a complaint file on the project and a letter has been sent to the Italian authorities to request information on the issue. The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to ensure the observance of Community law and in particular of the Directive mentioned.

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

(2001/C 364 E/085) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1309/01 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Position regarding the water-treatment plants in Molina de Segura (Murcia, Spain)

According to recent press reports, the Commission considers the municipality of Molina de Segura (Murcia, Spain) to have one of the worst records where sewage treatment is concerned.

At present Molina de Segura has two water-treatment plants, a lagooning plant and a standard plant. However, there is a problem because the industries which produce the most pollution, in particular the canning industries, discharge their effluents in Molina, which consequently reach the water-treatment plants without undergoing any form of pretreatment, whereas the plants are designed only for municipal sewage and not industrial effluents.

The body that manages the area’s waters (Confederacíon Hidrográfica del Segura) has to date brought nine actions in all against the companies on account of their irresponsible behaviour, but the companies are appealing and the Molina de Segura municipal authorities are, in one way or another, concealing their misdeeds and protecting them. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/81

In the light of the foregoing:

1. Can the Commission supply further information?

2. Will the Commission continue to countenance this situation by virtue of the new water-treatment plant which it is to finance, bearing in mind that the plants in question cannot cope with industrial effluents?

Furthermore, is true, as has been asserted, that the projected new plant will be financed with the aid of a substantial European contribution?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The Commission’s Decision of 7 March 2001 (1) on sewerage and waste water treatment in the Segura catchment area relates primarily to construction of a new urban waste water treatment plant on the territory of the commune of Molina de Segura at a total cost of € 19 834 000. The Cohesion Fund’s contribution is 80 %, i.e. € 15 867 200.

The new plant will resolve the problems raised by the Honourable Member, notably discharge of untreated waste water into the River Segura and the need for better treatment levels in that commune. It will use both biological and tertiary agents. The tariffs for its use will be proportionate to the pollution caused by users, notably the area’s companies.

The urban waste water Directive (2) requires agglomerations greater in size than 15 000 population equivalent (p.e.) (3) to have collecting systems installed and at least secondary waste water treatment by 31 December 2000. Under its Article 13(1) biodegradable industrial waste water from plants with a p.e. bigger than 4 000 in certain sectors, including the meat industry, must before discharge to receiving waters comply with the prior regulations or specific authorisations of the Member State.

Competent authorities are required (Article 15 of the Directive) to monitor waters receiving discharges from urban waste water treatment plants or direct discharges as indicated in Article 13.

(1) Decision 2000 ES 16 C PE 005. (2) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ L 135, 30.5.1991). (3) One ‘population equivalent’ means the organic biodegradable load having a five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) of 60 g per day.

(2001/C 364 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1313/01 by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Tax on wine in Sweden

The Commission previously urged Sweden to reduce the tax on wine. The Swedish Government intended to comply with this request but, following an agreement between the government and its allied parties in the Swedish Parliament, the tax will apparently not be reduced.

What measures will the Commission take to persuade Sweden to comply with its request to reduce the tax on wine? C 364 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it recently sent Sweden a reasoned opinion on certain aspects of Swedish tax law relating to wine and beer which it deems incompatible with the Treaty. The Commission considers that the Swedish tax system establishes discrimination contrary to the Treaty by charging a higher tax on wine than on beer, indirectly protecting beer (a domestic product) from competition from wine (a product from other Member States).

It is now up to Sweden to take the necessary measures to comply with the Commission’s reasoned opinion. The Commission reserves the right to use all the means put at its disposal by the Treaty, including referral of the matter to the Court of Justice, to ensure proper application of Community law.

(2001/C 364 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1316/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Directive on the taxation of savings

1. Could the Commission please state what progress has been made in negotiations with the US and key third countries, including Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Andorra and San Maríno, with a view to securing the introduction of ‘equivalent measures’ in those countries before the directive on the taxation of savings is adopted?

2. Could it please state if it has undertaken a business impact assessment and/or a feasibility study on information exchange in the directive on the taxation of savings?

3. Could it indicate when the new draft directive on the taxation of savings is likely to be available?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2001)

1. At the European Council in Santa Maria da Feira on 19 and 20 June 2000, Member States decided that, once agreement had been reached on the substantial content of the Directive on taxation of savings income and before its formal adoption, the Presidency and the Commission should enter into discussions with the United States and five other key third countries (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Maríno and Andorra) in order to promote the adoption of equivalent measures by those countries. At the same time, the Member States concerned made a commitment to promote the adoption of the same measures in all relevant dependent or associated territories. In accordance with the timetable of Feira, the Ecofin Council on 26/27 November 2000 agreed the substantial content of the savings proposal. In January 2001, the Presidency and the Commission wrote letters to the third countries named in the Feira agreement in order to invite them to enter into discussions on the proposed Directive. As explained in those letters, the discussions, at this stage, do not have the character of formal negotiations, but serve mainly to inform the third countries of the agreement reached last November 2000 and to gauge their reaction on this agreement and the prospects for the introduction of equivalent measures.

Following these letters, a first round of exploratory talks has been completed at technical level with the six countries, while political contacts have been taken up with some of them. A first report on these discussions is presented at the Ecofin Council meeting on 5 June 2001. At that meeting, the Member States concerned reported on the state of play of the discussions with their dependent and associated territories. The Parliament will be kept informed on these discussions.

2. As for all new legislative proposals, the Commission has carefully examined the impact of the proposed Directive (1) on taxation of savings income on market operators. The proposed measures take full account of the need to preserve the competitiveness of European financial markets. The obligations placed 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/83

on paying agents inevitably will entail some additional administrative costs for the market operators concerned and may require them to adapt their administrative procedures and computerised systems. However, every effort has been made to keep additional compliance costs for market operators to a minimum. It may be noted that a Council working group is currently examining the technical details of the information exchange system.

3. The Commission is preparing a new proposal for a Directive on taxation of savings income, which will replace its 1998 proposal, taking into account the conclusions of the Feira European Council of 19/20 June 2000 and the Ecofin conclusions of 26/27 November 2000. The Commission intends to present its new proposal to the Council, the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee in the coming months.

(1) OJ C 212, 8.7.1998.

(2001/C 364 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1317/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council (4 May 2001)

Subject: Directive on the taxation of savings

Could the Council please state what progress has been made in negotiations with the US and key third countries, including Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Andorra and San Maríno, with a view to securing the introduction of ‘equivalent measures’ in those countries before the directive on the taxation of savings is adopted?

Reply (27 September 2001)

The Council wants, in the first instance, to draw the Honourable Parliamentarian’s attention to the fact that, at present, no negotiations with third countries are being conducted in this field.

According to the conclusions of the European Council in Nice, the Commission and the Presidency are currently undertaking discussions with the United States and other third countries in order to encourage the adoption of equivalent measures on the taxation of savings. The Commission and the Presidency have reported on these discussions to the Council at its meeting on 5 June 2001 (Ecofin) and the Council, then, concluded to agree, at its meeting in October, on a mandate for negotiations with third countries, on this topic. This meeting provided an opportunity for the Council to take stock of the progress reached so far in these discussions.

(2001/C 364 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1318/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Council (4 May 2001)

Subject: System of licensing radio stations in the Attica basin

After many years of ambiguity in the law governing radio stations in Greece, the Greek Government adopted a licensing system. In the Attica basin, it issued licences for 20 radio stations which, in its view, is the maximum number that can operate on the available radio frequencies.

However, it did not issue licences to many stations with high audience ratings, a high turnover and a large number of staff. Following a number of protests, therefore, and a technical recommendation which met certain requirements laid down by the government itself, it raised the number of licences provisionally to 28. Again, however, several stations of recognised quality with high audience figures were not included. Meanwhile, reports by professors at the Athens Institute of Technology maintain that the number of frequencies can be increased to 35 without difficulty. C 364 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The Greek Government uses the National Broadcasting Council as a vehicle for issuing opinions based on various government technical recommendations, a situation which even led a pro-government member of the NBC to resign in protest against interference by the minister responsible.

1. In the light of Article 6(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union concerning fundamental human rights, and Article 11 of the Charter of Human Rights concerning freedom of the media, does the Council consider that the Greek Government’s actions are consistent with European law?

2. Will the Council address a recommendation to the Greek Government?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that under Article 151 (ex Article 128) TEC Community action in the audiovisual sector consists in encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and complementing their action in this area.

The issues raised do not fall within the Council’s sphere of competence.

(2001/C 364 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1321/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: General census in Greece

On 18 March 2001, a general census of the population was carried out in Greece. The questionnaire issued by the National Statistical Office contained questions which were obviously hangovers from a previous era (such as whether the home has a toilet), while there were also significant gaps such as the lack of questions on key factors such as possession of a car and the use of new technologies in Greece (e.g. the number of computers per household, access to the Internet etc.). Doubts were also expressed from several quarters about the overall organisation of the census and, therefore, the accuracy of the data that will ultimately be produced.

Is the Commission satisfied with the overall organisation of the census, and with the questionnaire used by the National Statistical Office to collect data from the population?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The content of a general census of population and housing usually reflects a combination of national data needs, international recommendations and, in the case of a Member State, the Community data needs expressed in the Community Census Programme. The Statistical office of the European Communities (Eurostat) is not in a position to judge how well the Greek 2001 census satisfies Greece’s national data needs. However, it should be noted that a general census is a huge and extremely costly operation. Therefore, the contents of censuses are usually restricted to the very basic structural variables of population and housing conditions, this data being needed either at a very detailed regional level or at a detailed level of classification. Obtaining a broader spectrum of variables is usually achieved by means of sample surveys, which enable a great variety of data to be produced at reasonable cost.

In terms of its questionnaire, the content of the Greek general census is fully in line with the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE)  Eurostat recommendations for the 2000 censuses of population and housing in the ECE region, and with the Community Programme for Population and Housing Censuses in 2001, as agreed by the Statistical Programme Committee and published by Eurostat 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/85

under the heading ‘Guidelines and table programme for the Community programme for population and housing censuses in 2001’.

As far as the degree of exhaustiveness of the Greek census is concerned, no information is yet available. However, it is known that the National Statistical Service of Greece had planned to carry out a post- enumeration survey to check the coverage of the census. The results of this quality-control exercise should become available in the coming months.

(2001/C 364 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1324/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Article 296(1)(b) of the EC Treaty

Pursuant to Article 296(1)(b), Member States are permitted to waive the general principle of competition (Title VI of the EC Treaty) in the case of military procurement. The Council adopted the list of products to which this applies on 15 April 1958.

What products appear on the list of 15 April 1958 to which Article 296(1)(b) refers?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The list of the arms, munition and war materiel, including nuclear arms, to which the provisions of Article 296 paragraph 1(b) of the Treaty of Rome are applicable is given below.

1. Portable and automatic firearms, such as rifles, carbines, revolvers, pistols, sub-machine guns and machine guns, except for hunting weapons, pistols and other low calibre weapons of the calibre less than 7 mm.

2. Artillery, and smoke, gas and flame throwing weapons such as: (a) cannon, howitzers, mortars, artillery, anti-tank guns, rocket launchers, flame throwers, recoilless guns; (b) military smoke and gas guns.

3. Ammunition for the weapons at 1 and 2 above.

4. Bombs, torpedoes, rockets and guided missiles: (a) bombs, torpedoes, grenades, including smoke grenades, smoke bombs, rockets, mines, guided missiles, underwater grenades, incendiary bombs; (b) military apparatus and components specially designed for the handling, assembly, dismantling, firing or detection of the articles at (a) above.

5. Military fire control equipment: (a) firing computers and guidance systems in infra-red and other night guidance devices; (b) telemeters, position indicators, altimeters; (c) electronic tracking components, gyroscopic, optical and acoustic; (d) bomb sights and gun sights, periscopes for the equipment specified in this list. C 364 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

6. Tanks and specialist fighting vehicles: (a) tanks; (b) military type vehicles, armed or armoured, including amphibious vehicles; (c) armoured cars; (d) half-tracked military vehicles; (e) military vehicles with tank bodies; (f) trailers specially designed for the transportation of the ammunition specified at paragraphs 3 and 4.

7. Toxic or radioactive agents: (a) toxic, biological or chemical agents and radioactive agents adapted for destructive use in war against persons, animals or crops; (b) military apparatus for the propagation, detection and identification of substances at paragraph (a) above; (c) counter-measures material related to paragraph (a) above.

8. Powders, explosives and liquid or solid propellants: (a) powders and liquid or solid propellants specially designed and constructed for use with the material at paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 above; (b) military explosives; (c) incendiary and freezing agents for military use.

9. Warships and their specialist equipment: (a) warships of all kinds; (b) equipment specially designed for laying, detecting and sweeping mines; (c) underwater cables.

10. Aircraft and equipment for military use.

11. Military electronic equipment.

12. Cameras specially designed for military use.

13. Other equipment and material.

14. Specialised parts and items of material included in this list insofar as they are of a military nature.

15. Machines, equipment and items exclusively designed for the study, manufacture, testing and control of arms, munitions and apparatus of an exclusively military nature included in this list.

(2001/C 364 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1339/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Religious discrimination

Can the Commission confirm that Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty outlaws discrimination on the grounds of religion? Can they therefore confirm that different treatment in employment law of Christian ministers compared to Muslim imams or Baha’i leaders would constitute such discrimination? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/87

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2001)

1. Under Article 13 EC (ex Article 6A), introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Council is entitled to take appropriate action, on a proposal from the Commission, to combat discrimination based, inter alia, on religion or belief. However, this provision has no direct effect and does not grant individuals any right which can be enforced before national courts or the European Court of Justice.

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) is based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty.

This Directive establishes a general principle of prohibition of any direct or indirect discrimination based, inter alia, on religion or belief. Article 4(2) of the Directive deals specifically with churches and other public and private organisations based on religion or belief. This provision would allow the religious employer to justify differences of treatment on grounds of religion or belief which are necessary to maintain the ethos of the relevant organisation or institution and to require that persons working for them act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos. Article 4(2), however, does not establish a general exemption and provides that the differences of treatment which could be justified as referring to a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement for a specific job will depend on the context or the nature of the job. The Directive also states very clearly that this provision should not justify discrimination on any other ground.

The Member States now have until December 2003 to take the necessary measures at national level to implement Directive 2000/78/EC.

2. The Commission does not have at its disposal any relevant information in order to be able to examine the existence of possible discrimination, in terms of employment conditions, between ministers of different religions.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

(2001/C 364 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1342/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Employment rights for ministers of religion

Does the Commission take the view that its aim should be to ensure all workers have full employment rights no matter what their occupation? When does it plan to extend these rights to ministers of religion, who are currently being treated in some cases in an almost feudal manner by illiberal religious authorities?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

Community employment law applies in principle to all employees. However, the concept of an employee is not itself defined in European employment law. As far as employment law is concerned, there therefore exists no horizontal definition of an employee, which would be universally applicable across all Member States. European Directives in the field of employment law therefore only apply to persons who, in the Member States, are protected as employees under national employment law.

In some Member States, ministers of religion are not considered to be employees according to national employment law. In such cases they are not covered by European employment law. C 364 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

In its Declaration No 11 on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations, annexed to the Final Act of the Amsterdam Treaty, the Union emphasises that it respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States. As the status of ministers of religion is closely linked to the status and internal organisation of churches and religious communities, the question as to whether or not ministers of religion have the status of employees under national employment law is therefore also a matter to be decided at the national level.

(2001/C 364 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1343/01 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Subject: World conference against racism, discrimination and xenophobia

The World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance is to be held in Durban (South Africa) from 31 August to 7 September 2001.

What plans does the Commission have in relation to this event?

Will the Commission make any specific contribution?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

The Commission will contribute to the debate taking place at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance with a Communication (1). This Communication summarises the measures which have already been taken at the level of the Union to combat racism, and demonstrates what can be achieved by a group of states acting together at regional level. The Member States and the institutions of the Union have shown their commitment to the fight against racism by co- ordinating their policies and activities in a number of areas at European level. The Council has also adopted binding legislation at European level to prohibit racial discrimination, which the Member States are required to implement into their national laws. The examples of work in the Union set out in the Communication are intended not only to contribute to debate at the World Conference, but also to inspire efforts to combat racism at a regional level throughout the world, in the years that follow the Conference. The World Conference will also provide an opportunity for the Union to learn from the experiences of the rest of the world. This should help devise future strategies and measures to combat racism.

In the preparations for the World Conference, the Commission is involved in the drafting and negotiation process of the Political Declaration and Programme of Action to be adopted by the Conference. The Commission will lead the Community Delegation to the Conference which will include Members of the Parliament, representatives of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and relevant non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The Community has also been actively involved in the preparatory process of the World Conference both in the preparation of the European Regional Conference (Strasbourg 11-13 October 2000) and by participating in the other regional conferences (Americas, Africa and Asia) and has contributed € 3,6 million to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to support the participation of NGOs in the preparatory process (Santiago, 5-7 December 2000; Dakar, 21-24 January 2001; Teheran, 19-21 February 2001) and the World Conference itself.

(1) COM(2001) 291 final. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/89

(2001/C 364 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1350/01 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Implementation of Seveso II

What arrangements has each Member State made for the implementation of the land use planning sections of the Seveso II Directive? Are the controls now fully implemented in each Member State?

Where Member States have implemented land use planning controls, has this been done to a nationally defined standard or has it been done on a local basis?

If controls have been implemented, have the controls been based on a risk assessment of each site? Has the method by which the distances are calculated been made public?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The Commission is currently checking the transposition of the Seveso II Directive, Council Directive 96/ 82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1)in the Member States. Currently, infringement procedures against five Member States for non-communication or incomplete communication of transposition measures are pending before the Court of Justice (Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Austria, and Portugal).

As in many cases the transposition of the provisions concerning the land-use planning require measures to be taken at regional level, different sets of laws, regulations and administrative provisions have to be checked for each Member State, and therefore, the process of controlling the transposition of the Directive is not yet finalised. In most Member States, land use planning is carried out at local level, though under national/regional guidance or oversight. However, should it show that Member States have not fully transposed the requirements of Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive, infringement procedures against these Member States will be initiated in due time.

In order to facilitate the implementation of the provisions of the Seveso II Directive on land use planning, and in order to promote a consistent application throughout the Community, a guidance document on land use planning has been elaborated by the Commission in close co-operation with the Member States. It was published in 1999 and can be received from the Major Accident Hazard Bureau established within the Joint Research Centre of the Commission (http://mahbsrv.jrc.it/GuidanceDocs.html).

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.

(2001/C 364 E/096) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1352/01 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Tricycles for disabled people

Is the Commission aware that tricycles made for disabled people in one Member State cannot always be used by disabled people in other Member States because of different rules on whether special licences are needed and whether disabled people are allowed to drive such vehicles at all?

Does the Commission have any plans to address this issue? C 364 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

According to Community legislation, from a driving licence (1) and type-approval (2) perspective, there are two categories of tricycles: tricycles developping a maximum design speed above 45 kilometers per hour (km/h) and tricycles below such a speed.

It should be noted that so-called ‘light tri-and quadricycles’ which do not fall within the scope of directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences, remain a matter of national competence. Thus each Member State may make its own rules regarding their use.

However, if a citizen holds a driving licence for a tricycle with a maximum design speed over 45 km/h and that tricycle has been adapted in accordance with the provisions of the above mentioned Directive on driving licences, then mutual recognition is assured between Member States.

Differences between Member States do occur because point 5 of Annex III of the above mentioned directive, permits that Member States may set standards higher than the minima set out in Annex III for the issue or any subsequent renewal of driving licences. Moreover, it is evident that the assessment as to whether a disabled person is allowed to drive and under what circumstances is a decision for the relevant national medical authorities responsible for the medical examination. This will inevitably lead to slight differences in the interpretation of the identical relevant legislation, not only between Member States, but also between competent medical authorities within one Member State, due to inevitable differences in opinion between doctors.

The Commission wishes to promote mobility and free movement for disabled persons. For this reason work is currently underway on examining the actions taken in the different Member States in order to come to a more harmonised approach across the Community.

(1) Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ L 237, 24.8.1991). (2) Council Directive 92/61/EEC of 30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles (OJ L 225, 10.8.1992).

(2001/C 364 E/097) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1353/01 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Human rights in Malaysia

Is the Council aware of the arrest on 10 April of Mr Tian Chang Chua, Mr Hishamudin Rais, Mr Sarri Sungip and Mr Abdul Malekhusin by the Malaysian police, for the most part under the Internal Security Act?

Is the Council aware that these (and possibly other) arrests have taken place just ahead of the presentation of a memorandum by human rights groups to the National Human Rights Commission set up two years ago by the Malaysian Government?

What is the Council’s assessment of these events, and what measures does the Council intend to take?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council is indeed aware of these arrests and has conveyed the Union’s concerns regarding the wave of recent arrests to the Malaysian Foreign Minister. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/91

(2001/C 364 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1354/01 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Human rights in Malaysia

Is the Commission aware of the arrest on 10 April of Mr Tian Chang Chua, Mr Hishamudin Rais, Mr Sarri Sungip and Mr Abdul Malekhusin by the Malaysian police, for the most part under the Internal Security Act?

Is the Commission aware that these (and possibly other) arrests have taken place just ahead of the presentation of a memorandum by human rights groups to the National Human Rights Commission set up two years ago by the Malaysian Government?

What is the Commission’s assessment of these events, and what measures does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2001)

The Commission is aware of the detention by the Malaysian police on 10 April and in the days that followed, of ten pro-reform activists under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

As stated by The Honourable Member, the detentions took place just days ahead of a rally called by human rights groups to present a memorandum to the National Human Rights Commission on the state of human rights in Malaysia.

This rally coincided with the second anniversary (14 April) of the conviction of Mr Anwar Ibrahim, former Deputy Prime Minister and prisoner of conscience on Amnesty International’s records.

The Commission is deeply concerned by these arrests, which it considers contrary to established democratic practice and which further deeper its previous concerns regarding the general human rights situation in Malaysia. In this respect it welcomes the fact that the Malaysian National Human Rights Commission has questioned the basis of the arrests.

The Commission has proposed that this subject be addressed with Member States in the Council.

(2001/C 364 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1358/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Xerox restructuring and consultation

Is the Commission aware of the failure by Xerox in Venrey in Holland, Dundalk in Ireland and Mitcheldean in the UK to consult with the workers regarding their current restructuring plans? In the light of the fact that Marks and Spencers in France have been forced by the French courts to suspend the closure of their stores until the restructuring proposals have been done in consultation with their workers, does the Commission not feel that Xerox should be legally bound to suspend their restructuring plans until they have legally consulted their workers? C 364 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Questions E-0362/01, E-0363/01 and E-0366/01 (1). It has no further information on the failure by Xerox in Venrey (Holland), Dundalk (Ireland) and Mitcheldean (United Kingdom) to consult with the workers regarding their current restructuring plans.

As far as the Honourable Member’s question concerning sanctions in case of serious infringements of the right of employees to be informed and consulted is concerned, the Commission wishes to highlight, that in its proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the Community (2), the Commission proposed a provision which does not have a precedent in the Community directives on employee information and consultation. It states that in the case of a serious breach of the Directive, e.g. total absence of information and/or consultation before a decision being taken or publicly announced, or the withholding of important information or provision of false information affecting the effectiveness of the procedure, such decisions should not have legal effects on the employment contracts of the employees concerned until the moment when the employer has fulfilled its obligations or, if this is no longer possible, appropriate compensation has been fixed.

On 11 June 2001 the Council reached agreement on a compromise text for a common position. In this compromise the Council did not accept the Commission proposal for more stringent sanctions. The Commission will press for final adoption of this important Directive including the proposed sanctions

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 19. (2) OJ C 2, 5.1.1999.

(2001/C 364 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1366/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Protecting stray dogs in Romania

According to television reports, moves are under way to get rid of the approximately 200 000 stray dogs roaming the streets of Bucharest; the reports included footage of the mass burial sites used to dispose of the animals once they have been killed. Since they are strays, the dogs have become wild and the authorities consider them to be a danger. Special teams of non-professional dog-catchers are being used to round up the dogs and take them to a camp, ostensibly for sterilisation, although in actual fact they are shot as soon as they are outside the city boundaries. Animal-lovers, journalists, veterinarians  and even Brigitte Bardot  have been making trips to Bucharest to save as many of these dogs as they can from a certain death. However, the problem is on such a large scale that the goodwill of just a few individuals is not enough.

1. Can the Commission state whether it is aware of this problem?

2. Whether it is willing to negotiate with the Romanian Government with a view to finding a way out of this terrible situation?

3. Whether it has raised the issue of animal welfare during the enlargement negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2001)

The Commission is aware of the policy on stray dogs which is practised by the Municipality of Bucharest. While recognising that stray dogs constitute a problem that needs to be addressed, the Commission finds that this policy may lead to a treatment of stray dogs which is unnecessarily cruel and disproportionate. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/93

However, European legislation on protection of wild animals, protection of animals used for experimental or scientific purposes, animal welfare on the farm, during transport and at slaughter does not apply to stray dogs.

Therefore, the Commission has no legal basis to formally address this issue with the Romanian authorities.

(2001/C 364 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1368/01 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Foot-and-mouth crisis

In light of the continuing foot-and-mouth crisis and the regulations requiring that all animals moving into the island of Ireland are certified with animal health certificates, can the Commission account for animal movements to the Republic of Ireland from the UK, in the context that animals moving from Northern Ireland to the Republic do not require such certificates, and that there has been confusion and delay with regard to the tracing of these animals because of this?

According to reports in the media a truck belonging to a dealer in Banbridge, Ireland, carrying infected animals from Britain, travelled to several marts in Northern Ireland. Can the Commission confirm that all these animals have been traced? Can the Commission confirm that the Irish and UK authorities have traced all potentially diseased animals that originated in the UK?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Community legislation on intra-Community trade of bovine, porcine, ovine and caprine animals, as laid down in Council Directives 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra- Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1) and Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals (2), requires that any consignment of these animals moving from one Member State to another Member State is accompanied by a health certificate issued by the competent veterinary authority of the Member State of dispatch.

The above provisions therefore apply to movements from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. In addition, safeguard measures due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) ban any movement of live cattle from the United Kingdom.

Due to the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in the United Kingdom, the Commission adopted a ban on 21 February 2001, the day after the reporting of the disease in England, on any movement of animals of FMD-susceptible species from the United Kingdom to any other destination. In the following days further decisions were also taken concerning the tracing of the consignments of those animals, and particularly sheep, which had been moved from the United Kingdom after the likely date of FMD introduction in England, which was estimated to be not before 1 February 2001.

During the FMD crisis, the Irish authorities have constantly informed the Commission about their progress in tracing animals legally or illegally moved into Ireland. Most of these animals had been routinely slaughtered before 21 February. The animals concerned, sheep and pigs, mainly introduced for fattening or immediate slaughter, were traced. Tests carried out on these animals gave negative results for FMD. C 364 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

On 13 March 2001, the Irish authorities provided the Commission with a report which concludes that a haulier was responsible for some illegal movements of sheep. The Commission is not aware whether the haulier mentioned in this report is the same as that quoted by the Honourable Member. However, the Commission is confident that the competent authorities of Ireland have done their utmost to trace all consignments of animals introduced into Ireland in the first weeks of February 2001.

(1) OJ B 121, 29.7.1964. (2) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991.

(2001/C 364 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1377/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Regional fisheries organisations

Can the Commission give a rational explanation for the continuing protracted delay in the transposition of rules required to enable the Community to fulfil the obligations incumbent on it because it belongs to particular regional fisheries organisations (RFOs) and specifically, to name just some examples, to APICD (the failure to comply with the international agreement concerned resulted in an embargo) and the CCAMLR, whose 1999 measures have still not entered into force? Furthermore, as far as ICCAT is concerned, although it is a leading contracting party, the Commission may not meet the deadline laid down by the Working Group on Allocation Criteria requiring it to submit a discussion document by 21 April, as agreed at ICCAT’s 12th extraordinary meeting.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

The Commission is aware of the growing importance to the Community of multilateral management of maritime fisheries, and it shares the Honourable Member’s wish that the binding recommendations adopted by the regional fisheries organisations (RFOs) to which the Commission is a contracting party should be incorporated into Community law as soon as possible. Since 1999 the Commission has undertaken extensive work drafting and proposing Council regulations to implement them.

For example, on 16 December 1999 Council Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 laying down certain control measures applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the north- east Atlantic fisheries (1) incorporated into Community law the control scheme adopted by the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), and numerous proposals have since been tabled at the Council and presented to Parliament for opinion.

With regard to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), two Regulations were proposed: the first on technical measures for highly migratory species (2) (adopted at the Council meeting (fisheries) on 25 April 2001) and the second on control measures for highly migratory species (3) (currently being examined by the Council Working Party on External Fisheries Policy). Both Regulations cover not only the ICCAT rules, but also those of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).

Regarding the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme (AIDCP), the Commission is aware of certain Member States’ concern about implementing its tuna monitoring system. The proposal for a Council Regulation adopted by the Commission will shortly be presented to the Council and to Parliament.

The Council also adopted an implementing proposal on the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Maríne Living Resources (CCAMLR), relating to the scheme for documenting catches of Dissosticchus species (toothfish). A further two proposals are currently being prepared within the Commission, one on technical measures and one on control measures applicable in the area covered by the CCAMLR Convention. Moreover, the total allowable catches (TACs) and the main technical measures 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/95

adopted by the CCAMLR for the 2000/2001 season have already been incorporated into legislation through Council Regulation (EC) No 2848/2000 of 15 December 2000 fixing for 2001 fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, waters where limitations in catch are required (4).

The Honourable Member also asks about the Community’s position vis-à-vis the 21-23 May 2001 meeting of the ICCAT Working Party on Allocation Criteria. At its meeting on 25 April the Council adopted a common position (5), on the basis of which the Community will make a constructive contribution to the discussion at the ICCAT Working Party.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999. (2) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000. (3) OJ C 62 E, 27.2.2001. (4) OJ L 334, 30.12.2000. (5) SN 2545/01 (Fisheries).

(2001/C 364 E/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1380/01 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Human rights situation in Nigeria

Some states in northern Nigeria have adopted Islamic religious law (the Sharia). This has led to serious unrest and violence in which thousands of civilians died last year. There is a real possibility of civil war and of unrest spreading to the whole continent. Nigeria’s political leaders do not seem aware of the seriousness of the country’s political situation when they try to encourage international inward investment. It seems that at present the EU is the only actor on the international scene strong enough to persuade Nigeria’s political leaders to tackle this problem decisively, and seek a solution.

What does the EU intend to do to remedy the serious situation in Nigeria?

Does the EU intend to take the situation in Nigeria into account in its policies on business, investments and trade?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

The adoption of Islamic religious law (Sharia) has led to serious ethnic and religious violence in Nigeria and the question of Sharia may lead to further unrest and political agitation. Sharia is popular in certain states (predominantly in the North) and has been used as a political tool in the absence of social and economic programmes to improve the living standards of the population. It is certainly part of a wider political power struggle between different areas of the country (mostly over resource control and allocation). President Obasanjo has denounced punishments such as amputation as a violation of Nigeria’s constitution and of human rights but is avoiding a legal challenge to Sharia as this would certainly lead to an increased risk of conflict. He is currently seeking a political solution by a low-key approach.

It should, however, be noted that full Sharia exists in a relatively few states in the Federation and seems unlikely to be a catalyst for potential civil war as opposed to limited civil unrest. It is one of several factors affecting the stability of Nigeria. There are no signs that the issue of Sharia itself will have spill over effects affecting either the region or the whole continent.

Nigeria is keen to attract international investment and their efforts to do so should be both encouraged and assisted. They have made significant advances in a relatively short time but the legacy of military rule means that economic systems and practices have to be completely revamped. The signing of a Stand-by C 364 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) last year shows their commitment to economic reform and the wish to establish a satisfactory economic policy record. This is, however a lengthy process and confidence for investment will increase in Nigerian only when results become clearer. This is why the Union and other international organisations attempt to take a long-term perspective as opposed to short- term measures, which are likely to be ineffective. There have been too many false starts in Nigeria.

In the light of the Cotonou Agreement, the Community is seeking to address business, investment, trade and developmental issues in Nigeria. Obviously Sharia is one of the factors in this equation and Union concerns for the human rights situation is part of this dialogue but this must be taken forward in a sensible way due to the extreme political sensitivity of the matter.

The Union has, via a declaration by the Presidency (30 January, 2001) called upon the government to respect international human rights covenants and reaffirmed its willingness to support the consolidation of democracy and respect for human rights. This support is planned to be part of future assistance to Nigeria particularly via the strengthening of civil society.

(2001/C 364 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1386/01 by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Council

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Escalation of violence in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The spiral of violence which has been triggered in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia by Albanian extremists is jeopardising the stability of the country, to the extent that there is talk of a new ‘powder keg’ in the Balkans. The fears unleashed by the Albanian minority’s demands are linked not so much to the call for autonomy as to the creation of a ‘Greater Albania’ which would lead to the outbreak of a further conflict in the Balkans.

In both social and economic terms, FYROM has suffered greatly as a consequence of the war in Serbia and has taken in many Albanian refugees from Kosovo.

The recent signing by Macedonia and the EU of a stability and association agreement is a reaffirmation of the EU’s support for Macedonia as it gradually aligns itself with the Union.

What steps is the Council planning to take in order to make Macedonia’s borders more secure and to prevent the infiltration of Albanian weapons and guerrilla fighters?

What action does the EU intend to take in association with its international partners in order to remedy this state of affairs before it degenerates?

Is the Council thinking of calling on the UN Security Council to issue an additional mandate to K-FOR in Macedonia, so that the security forces are not required to restrict their activities to border checks but may be allowed to intervene under the mandate which may be conferred upon them and in line with what the European Parliament’s President Nicole Fontaine called for in her opening speech at the Stockholm European Council?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council is seriously concerned about the level of tension and violence  which the EU has repeatedly condemned in the firmest terms  in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. These incidents are a dangerous provocation from ethnic Albanian extremists aimed at drawing the government of FYROM into the spiral of a full-scale conflict. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/97

But there is also better news and room for hope: the Secretary-General/High Representative, Mr Javier Solana, through his strong personal commitment and numerous visits to the country since the beginning of the crisis, was instrumental in getting the interethnic dialogue under way, within the ‘all party Europe Committee’; on 13 May a ‘Government of national unity’, including main ethnic Albanian political parties, was finally formed, which was warmly welcomed by the Council as an important step towards closer cooperation between different ethnic communities in the country. The signature of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with FYROM on 9 April has been a powerful lever in the hands of the EU, and the agreement will remain an important instrument for engaging the FYROM government.

The EU has clearly stressed the need for the new government to produce quickly concrete results, particularly on issues related to the situation of minorities (i.e. new TV Channel in Albanian language, progress on the Albanian language South East Europe University in Tetovo, early reconstruction of building damaged by armed clashes etc). The European Union will support FYROM’s efforts to this end. The EU feels that the delivery of early concrete results is vital in order to keep the political process going, to isolate extremists and to bring FYROM closer to Europe.

The EU message was clearly spelled out by the EU Ministerial Troika, which visited Skopje on 16 May 2001, to all its interlocutors.

(2001/C 364 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1387/01 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Use of EU Institutions’ facilities

Could you please advise whether or not you consider it appropriate behaviour for a Principal Administrator at DG Environment to use the facilities of the EU Institutions to promote an ‘e-mail flood’ to the e-mail address of President George Bush of the USA, to protest against his policy on Kyoto?

Is this not an inappropriate use of the facilities of the EU Institutions, inappropriate behaviour by a civil servant and an affront to a friendly and allied nation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

E-mail is a relatively new tool and no detailed code of conduct for its use within the Commission currently exists although an Internet Charter is being prepared at the moment.

However each member of staff, prior to being given access to the Internet and external e-mail facilities, signs the following agreement: ‘I will use the facilities granted to me essentially for the purposes of my professional duties at the Commission. I will use the Internet for private purposes only in so far as such use does not run counter to the interests of the service or hamper the smooth running of the institution.’

In general terms e-mail flooding is not considered acceptable and the incident to which the Honourable Member refers has been investigated accordingly.

The mail originated from ‘Friends of the Earth’ who sent it to several different members of staff. As far as could be ascertained there was only one Principal Administrator who merely sent it to two external contacts for information. C 364 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1390/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2001)

Subject: Comparative assessment of education systems

Does the Commission agree that the standard of education in the European Union is a key determinant of long-run economic performance? Will it provide a rank ordering of the Member States from first to last in terms of each of the following objectively assessed criteria, and state the figures supporting those judgements in each case? Adult literacy; proportion of workforce with vocational qualifications for skills; standards of mathematics attainment; ability to speak another language; years in full time education; minimum school-leaving age; proportion in higher education.

Will the Commission add any further objective criteria it feels may be relevant to a comparative assessment of education systems?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

The Commission believes that raising the standards of learning is essential if Europe is to become a more competitive and dynamic society and its citizens are to be better able to develop their own skills and competences and realise their potential as citizens, as members of society and as economic agents.

The Commission, however, does not believe that the objective of quality assessments is to define ranking between countries or a common concept of quality of education. Its aim is rather to identify areas within which comparisons between countries could be made in order to identify good practice, exchange experience and define main policy challenges.

In the Report of the Commission on Quality of School Education, sixteen indicators were identified. A follow up is presently being made in order to identify a limited number of indicators on quality of lifelong learning. This initiative has been taken in co-operation with experts from more than 30 European countries.

Indicators play also a central role in the open method of co-ordination and in the detailed work programme for the implementation of the ‘Report on the Concrete Future Objectives of the Education and Training Systems’, which was transmitted to the Stockholm European Council of March 2001 by the Education Council on the basis of a proposal from the Commission (1). Indicators will be integrated as appropriate in relation to all the objectives of the report and especially in relation to three priority areas: Basic skills; Mathematics, Science and Technology; and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Following the Stockholm conclusions a Joint report from the Council and the Commission will be transmitted to the Barcelona Summit, at the beginning of 2002. In this report a choice of indicators to monitor developments and support the exchange of experiences between the Member States will be made.

(1) COM(2001) 59 final.

(2001/C 364 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1392/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2001)

Subject: Public investment

Does the Commission agree that the investment that secures adequate rates of return should be undertaken whether in the public or the private sector? If so, what is the justification for including public investment in the targeted measures of public borrowing? Why not merely ensure that public investment does indeed earn suitable ex ante and ex post rates of return? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/99

Answer give by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

The Commission would agree that investments securing adequate rates of return should be undertaken in both the public and the private sector. It also believes that the public sector must do its best to contribute to the accumulation of capital within the economy and to promote economic growth (1). The level of investment must, however, be compatible with the principle of budgetary discipline and cannot therefore conflict with budgetary constraints, and in particular those imposed by the Stability and Growth Pact. These constraints, which are intended to restore balance to the budget in the medium term, will also create room for increased expenditure on government projects, by reducing the burden of public debt.

To evaluate projects in terms of performance and decide whether the public sector should shoulder the costs, government bodies apply the techniques of cost-benefit analysis. Various methods are used, some taking account of budgetary availabilities. In any case, the profitability criterion must be viewed in conjunction with budgetary considerations so that there is no risk of exceeding the limits imposed by budgetary discipline.

(1) See the Communication from the Commission on ‘The Contribution of Public Finances to Growth and Employment: Improving Quality and Sustainability’, COM(2000) 846 final.

(2001/C 364 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1393/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2001)

Subject: Public investment in the Member States

Will the Commission describe the principle hurdle rate for public investment applied by each Member State government? If there is more than one hurdle rate, will it describe the rate also applied to transport infrastructure projects? Does the prospective flow of returns with which the hurdle rate is compared include social costs and benefits, and if so will the Commission provide a brief description in each case of the procedure and the key values attributed to time-savings and avoidance of deaths?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The Commission understands that the practice of many Member States for transport infrastructure investments is to ‘discount’ future costs and benefits to establish a ‘net present value’ rather than use a single minimum hurdle rate (cut off rate). While this approach can be used in a strictly financial analysis, the assessment framework most commonly used is that of social cost-benefit analysis. Here, capital costs are compared with maintenance, vehicle operating, time and accident costs savings. In some Member States environmental damage costs are also monetised whereas in others these and other broader impacts, such as land use or regional economic development, are often taken into account as complementary, qualitative information.

The discount rate normally applied in the cost-benefit analyses in the Member States varies between 3-8 % on real (inflation adjusted) costs and benefits.

The Member States use a wide range of definitions, modal coverage and values for time savings. Using harmonised definitions, the range provided by the EUNET (1) project is between € 6,3-23 per hour (h) (1995 prices). C 364 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

As regards savings from reductions in fatalities, the discrepancies in definitions and measurement among the Member States is even bigger than for time savings. The values in use range from € 35 000-1 700 000 per fatality, representing a 48-fold difference. After harmonising for the definitions, the EUNET (1) project reduced this difference to a factor of 4.5 and indicated a weighted average value of € 770 000 per fatality (1995 prices). The 2nd Community programme on road safety (1997-2001) introduced the criteria of € 1 million for life saved.

The Commission also follows with interest the on-going work of Western European Road Directors on project evaluation and impact assessment.

(1) For more information, see final report of EUNET ‘Socio-economic and spatial impacts of transport’, Fourth framework Transport Research programme, forthcoming at http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/extra/reports.html.

(2001/C 364 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1394/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2001)

Subject: Corporation tax

What is the revenue raised by public authorities from corporation or other profits taxes on companies in each year in each Member State, expressed as a proportion of GDP in each case? What conclusions does the Commission draw from these figures concerning the debate over whether we need certain minimum corporation tax rates to stop a so-called ‘chase to the bottom’?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2001)

A table presenting taxes on corporate income as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) for the Member States for the period 1980-2001 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

The Commission is not of the view that there is empirical evidence to suggest the existence of a so-called ‘race to the bottom’.

The Commission has in its recent Communication on tax policy concluded that the setting of tax rates in this field is a matter for the Member States.

(2001/C 364 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1396/01 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2001)

Subject: Directive for a general framework for informing and consulting employees

Has the Commission conducted an impact assessment of the proposed directive for a general framework for informing and consulting employees? If it has, what were the results? If not, does the Commission consider it to be responsible legislative practice to proceed with the adoption of a new directive without being fully aware of its consequences? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/101

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

Before adopting its proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (1), the Commission conducted, as is current practice, an evaluation of its impact on businesses and in particular on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).

The Honourable Member will find the results of this evaluation in an annex to the Commission’s proposal.

(1) OJ C 2, 5.1.1999.

(2001/C 364 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1398/01 by Luís Queiró (UEN) to the Council

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Situation of Portuguese hostages in Cabinda

Seven Portuguese citizens continue to be held in Cabinda  two of them since 24 May 2000 (i.e. in captivity for exactly 11 months) and the others since 9 March 2001.

According to the information available the situation in Cabinda has sharply deteriorated, particularly on account of increased military pressure from Angola.

The author of this question takes the view (which is shared by the European Union as a whole) that the non-use of military force has been essential to the success of the diplomatic efforts undertaken in such situations.

A single example will suffice: about a year ago the EU called upon the Government of the Philippines not to take military action in its attempts to free a sizeable group of hostages who had been kidnapped in that country. The fact that they were successfully released proves that the EU was right to issue such a call.

There is no historical or political link between the situation in the Philippines and what is going on in Cabinda, but there is an obvious connection from the humanitarian point of view. In both cases the EU’s duty is to do all it can to protect the lives of the hostages (who are European citizens) and to secure their early release.

At a time when there are no journalists in the area (since they were all expelled by the Angolan Government) and in view of the military operations which have been engaged in by the Angolan armed forces and which, for the above reasons, have been carried out in the absence of any monitoring by the international community, a European special envoy should be sent to Cabinda  preferably Mr Javier Solana, in his capacity as High Representative for the EU’s common foreign and security policy. The purpose of such a visit would be to assess the actual political and military situation in Cabinda and to promote, on the EU’s behalf, whatever efforts are needed in order to secure the release of the Portuguese hostages.

Is the Council willing to countenance such a visit, which would constitute an initiative equivalent to the one it promoted in the case of the hostages held in the Philippines and which is becoming increasingly important in view of the length of time for which the hostages have been held, the seriousness of the situation and the fact that the hostages are Europeans? C 364 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council was informed by the Portuguese Foreign Minister Gama during the Council (configuration General Affairs) on 19 March 2001 about the kidnapping of eight Portuguese citizens in the Angolan province of Cabinda. Ministers expressed concern over the humanitarian situation of the Portuguese hostages. They strongly condemned their kidnapping and called on those responsible to release all hostages immediately. They recalled the EU’s condemnation of such practices and stressed the importance of the strict observance of the principles of humanitarian law.

Since then the question has not been raised within the Council or its competent working groups, neither has the question of sending the High Representative Mr Solana or any other representative into the region.

Nevertheless, the High Representative has been kept informed about the démarches undertaken in the matter by the President of the Republic of Congo, Mr Denis Sassou-Nguesso and the President of Gabon, Mr El Hadj Omar Bongo.

(2001/C 364 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1402/01 by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: EU funding for the completion of the A6 Amberg-Waidhaus motorway

The A6 motorway is part of the European Paris-Nürnberg-Prague east-west link and hence part of the trans-European Transport Network. In view particularly of the expected increase in traffic volume in the wake of membership of the Czech Republic, rapid completion of the remaining gap between Amberg and Waidhaus is urgently needed.

Can the Commission say in this context:

 which EU funds can be allocated to such projects in principle, and up to what level,

 what requests for funding have been made to the EU by the German Federal Government for the completion of the A6 stretch of motorway,

 what funding has so far been granted,

 what future financing can be anticipated for the three remaining part-sections?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

The A 6 motorway in Germany has been included in the trans-European transport network (1), and projects along this axis are therefore in principle eligible for Community financial aid under the trans- European transport network budget line. The relevant procedures are laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 (2), amended by Regulation (EC) No 1655/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council (3). The total amount of aid granted under this Regulation cannot exceed 10 % of the total investment cost of the project concerned.

As far as the Amberg-Waidhaus section of the A6 motorway, constituting the immediate border section with the Czech Republic, is concerned, the German Federal Government submitted to the Commission requests for Community financial aid in 1997 and 2001. On this basis, a grant of € 6,51 million was allocated in 1997 to support the construction of the Lohma-Waidhaus and the Pfreimd-Woppenhof sub- sections. A Commission Decision regarding a possible support for the Kaltenbaum-Lohma section, subject to request under the budget 2001, is still pending. No request was so far submitted to the Commission for the Woppenhof-Kaltenbaum sub-section of the project. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/103

Community co-financing of this sub-section will mainly depend on its technical and ‘financial maturity’ (i.e. the provision of the necessary national funding), and be subject to the availability of funds under the trans-European transport network budget line in the coming years.

(1) Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p.1. (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks (OJ L 228, 23.9.1995, p. 1). (3) Regulation (EC) No 1655/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 1999 (OJ L 197, 29.7.1999, p. 1).

(2001/C 364 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1403/01 by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Research project on avoiding damage to fish in hydroelectric power stations

For many fish species hydroelectric power stations represent an often fatal obstacle on their natural migratory paths. For migratory fish such as the European eel this poses a threat to their continued existence.

In 1996 the first stage of a research project on this subject was commissioned by the Bavarian Agriculture Ministry. In the second stage, testing is now due to begin of the proposed technical methods of avoiding harm to fish at hydroelectric power stations. Extensive funding is needed for this. Talks with possible cooperation partners in Austria and the Netherlands on implementing the research project jointly are now under way.

1. Are there possible sources of funding for such research projects within the EU institutions (e.g. ‘LIFE’)?

2. Under what conditions would possible funding be granted?

3. What level of funding would be possible?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

The Fifth Research and Technological Development framework programme (1998-2002) allows for the funding of research projects on the impact of hydroelectric plants on the migration of species such as the eel, in particular under key action 5.1.2  Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture  interactions between environment, fisheries and aquaculture  of the Specific Programme on Quality of Life, provided that a highly innovative scientific content is included in this type of research and there is a European High-level Partnership (with a minimum of two countries and three scientific partnerships). The closing date for the next call for proposal for research actions in this field (interaction resources/environment) is 18 October 2001.

A research project on this subject was accepted at the end of 2000, and is due to be completed by 2002. It concerns project OLRT 1999-31141 ‘Management of silver eel: human impact on downstream migration silver eel in the river Meuse’ coordinated by Kema Power Generation & Sustainables in the Netherlands. One of the expectations of this project is to develop a turbine management system that provides effective protection of eels when crossing through plants.

In the key action ‘Global change, climate and biodiversity,’ proposals are solicited for a deadline of 15 October 2001 for area 2.3.2 ‘Reconciling the conservation of biodiversity with potentially conflicting human activities.’ The call for proposals seeks work that would ‘formulate and evaluate the scientific, C 364 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

economic, technical and policy feasibility of conservation options for biodiversity.’ The work described in the question might be adapted to fall into the scope of this call, bearing in mind that the main evaluation criterion is scientific excellence.

Details on the work programme for these different Specific Programmes and on funding conditions are available on the Cordis website at the following address: http://www.cordis.lu/eesd/.

The financial instrument for the environment (LIFE) is not applicable because this is not an instrument for the support of projects mainly dedicated to research. Further details (scope, financial issues, etc.) are on the LIFE homepage of the Commission/Directorate general Environment: http:/europa.eu.int/comm/life/ home.htm.

(2001/C 364 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1407/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Effects of foot-and-mouth disease on the use of EU funding

Will the European Commission allow European money which is allocated for diversification to be used for the re-establishment of businesses which have been severely affected by the consequences of foot-and- mouth disease?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The financial resources available for diversification purposes under the terms of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1), fall under two measures:

 Investment in agricultural holdings (Article 4), and

 diversification of agricultural activities and activities close to agriculture to provide multiple activities or alternative incomes (Article 33).

The financial allocation to these two measures has been a matter for Member States in the preparation of their Rural Development Programmes and, where applicable in their structural fund programmes under Objective 1 and Objective 2. Furthermore, subject to the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 1257/ 1999, the details and types of support provided are different for each programme as these are based on the respective national or regional circumstances and priorities. Member States have a substantial degree of flexibility to modify these programmes taking account of recent events and any strategic needs for the longer-term. Though for some modifications the regulations require Member States to submit proposals to the Commission for approval.

However, the degree of flexibility must be within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999. Therefore, under these measures, it would be possible to support the re-establishment of businesses through diversification or other investments to either reduce production costs or to improve and redeploy production. But, it is not possible, for example, to use this support to re-stock farms that have suffered the destruction of their livestock.

The abovementioned Regulation includes provision for other ‘structural’ measures which may be able to provide support for businesses facing difficulties as a result of foot-and-mouth disease. These include support for processing and marketing of agricultural products, training, infrastructure for agriculture, basic services for the rural economy and population, renovation and development of villages and tourism and craft activities. It will be a matter for the Member States to decide how best these can be utilised (including 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/105

the level of allocated financial resources) as part of the solution for either the immediate crisis or in the longer term recovery. The Commission is aware of decisions, already taken or, being considered by, Programme Monitoring Committees of current Structural Fund programmes to ‘fast-track’ projects related to tourism, promotion or marketing schemes, business support and other relevant schemes, to assist the worst hit regions to overcome the difficulties they face.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 364 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1412/01 by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), Heinz Kindermann (PSE) and Willi Görlach (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2001)

Subject: Free trade in the plant protection sector, EU Directive 91/414/EEC

Small and medium-sized producers in the plant protection sector take the view that Directive 91/414/ EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(3)(d) thereof, consolidates the monopoly position of multinational firms instead of promoting free trade, and argue that small and medium-sized producers do not have the financial resources to fund the studies required to obtain renewed authorisation from the EU authorities for existing active substances. As few firms can afford to fund such studies, they claim, this requirement clearly places small and medium-sized producers at a competitive disadvantage.

Does the Commission endorse that view?

In the United States, by contrast, multinational companies are obliged by law to share newly completed studies on existing active substances with their smaller competitors, subject to their paying an appropriate share of the costs (the ‘data compensation system’).

Is it true that the situation described above arose because of the lack of legislation in the Member States on fair access to data?

Would it be possible to consider solving such problems by means of a pan-European system to ensure fair access to data within the framework of Directive 91/414/EEC? Would the Commission be prepared to take action to achieve that end?

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4, of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market contains the rules on data protection. These rules have to be applied by Member States when granting authorizations for plant protection products.

The rules, adopted by Council in 1991, intend to strike a balance between the interest of research-based companies and the smaller companies. The research-based companies have to invest a large amount of money in order to present a dossier meeting the strict requirements of the Directive. The fact that smaller companies can enter the market after the expiry of the data protection period aims to ensure that no unlimited monopoly positions are created and that plant protection products are available at competitive prices for users. Nevertheless, the Commission recognises the concerns expressed by smaller companies and will consider what measures might be introduced to encourage their involvement in the market and the development of innovative products in a forthcoming review of Directive 91/414/EEC planned for 2002. C 364 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The Commission is aware that the current rules are complicated to apply for Member States and are also contested by the smaller companies. An intra-industry attempt to reach agreement between the two main industry groupings on developing a single industry position was unsuccessful after several years of negotiation.

The Commission will also examine the need to amend the provisions on data protection in the forthcoming review.

(2001/C 364 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1416/01 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 May 2001)

Subject: Equal opportunities for men and women

The Third European Study on Working Conditions, which relates to the year 2000, does not paint a picture which could be described as satisfactory in the case of the efforts being made to achieve equal opportunities for men and women.

The European Foundation considers that sex discrimination is still prevalent and that it adversely affects working women.

This discrimination is particularly at the upper end of the job spectrum.

Is the Commission intending to devise or implement further programmes designed to promote genuine equality of a kind which has manifestly not been achieved in occupations in which senior positions are habitually occupied by men?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The Honourable Member refers to the third European survey carried out by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions in 2000.

Indeed, the results of this survey clearly show the need for a full debate on the quality of work in Europe, in the current climate of increased competition and changing employment patterns, including the gender equality aspects.

With regard to whether the Commission intends to pursue its efforts to promote gender equality in occupations where the senior positions are usually held by men, the Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member of the on-going nature of work in this area through the Community framework Strategy on gender equality (2001-2005) and the related programme. This programme envisages five areas of intervention, namely gender equality in economic, social and civil life, as well as equal participation and representation, and gender stereotyping. For the year 2001-2002 the priority theme for projects and activities is equal pay, followed by reconciliation between family and work, women in decision-making and gender stereotyping. Moreover, through the fourth pillar of its guidelines which expressly deals with the issue of equal opportunities for women and men, the European Employment Strategy has given a significant impetus to attain gender equality. It is with the use of those tools and the political commitment of Heads of Government as set out in the recent conclusions of the Stockholm European Council that the objectives of the Community in respect of gender equality will be visibly promoted. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/107

(2001/C 364 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1420/01 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Bilateral agreements between the European Union and Switzerland

The bilateral agreements between the European Union and Switzerland have important implications for relations between the two sides and cover various spheres.

When are the individual agreements due to come into force and via what procedures?

What other discussions have been opened between the two sides and what sectors are being envisaged for greater integration?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The seven agreements signed with Switzerland on 21 June 1999 will enter into force all together once they have been ratified. One of the agreements, the one on free movement of persons, needs to be ratified by all Member States. These ratifications have not yet been completed. The Commission hopes that all ratifications will have been completed by the end of this year or early next year.

During the course of this spring the Commission has held exploratory talks with Switzerland in eight further sectors: Swiss participation in the European Environment Agency, co-operation on statistics, co- operation against fraud, trade in processed agricultural products, trade in services, Swiss participation in Community programmes (media, youth, education, training), taxation on savings, and the issues falling under the Schengen acquis and Dublin convention. For the first four sectors, the Council has given or is about to give negotiating directives to the Commission. In these sectors negotiations can start as soon as the Swiss side has adopted its own negotiating mandates. The exploratory talks in the other sectors are less advanced.

(2001/C 364 E/118) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1425/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Bread and food safety

Recent scares concerning the safety of food products, which have necessitated drastic decisions affecting certain animal species, must not make us forget that the issue of safety, in particular consumer protection, also concerns the product commonly sold as bread, but which sometimes is not bread, at least until the ingredients of bread have been clearly defined. The continually expanding production of ‘industrial’ bread, no longer made solely with wheat flour, is leading to the opening of new sales outlets, to the detriment of the small-scale bakeries. However, the need to ensure food safety, product quality, proper consumer information and genuine competition should lead the legislators to define more clearly what is meant by ‘bread’.

Does the Commission not consider it appropriate and useful to propose a revision of the legislation on bread and a clear definition of ‘home-baked bread’ compared with ‘industrial bread’.

Does it agree that only the product made from wheat flour, water, yeast, olive oil (or butter or lard), with or without salt, should be defined as bread? C 364 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Does it not consider that in order to ensure the authenticity of the product and proper information to consumers industrial bread should bear a label indicating where it was made?

Does it not consider that ‘home-baked’ bread should be sold where it is made?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

There is no Community legislation establishing standard provisions on the composition of bread.

In the Commission’s view, it would be difficult to pass such legislation given that the products concerned are so varied and there are so many local customs and traditions in this regard.

However, as with all foodstuffs, bakery products are covered by 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).

Prepackaged products of this kind must therefore bear a label providing certain mandatory information in keeping with the stipulations of the Directive, particularly a list of ingredients, so that the consumer has the information he needs to make an informed choice.

Where the products are not prepackaged, the information for the consumer must still be provided but, as indicated in Article 14 of Directive 2000/13/EC, the Member States must adopt rules concerning the manner in which the information is shown.

As regards particulars of the product’s place of origin or provenance, Article 3(8) of the aforementioned Directive stipulates that these must be indicated on the label where failure to give such particulars might mislead the consumer.

Finally, the Commission takes the view that imposing an obligation to sell certain types of products where they are made would run counter to the basic principle of freedom of trade and industry.

(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

(2001/C 364 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1426/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Trafficking in children

Unicef recently announced a that a ship (rightly called a ‘ship of horrors’) with 250 children on board, hungry and crammed in like cattle, was looking for somewhere to dock in the Gulf of Guinea. It is now known that the ship docked in the port of Cotonou in Benin, without any trace of the children being found on board. The media have raised a number of questions as to what has become of them. Until the current investigations throw light on the incident there remains a strong feeling of indignation regarding a dreadful phenomenon which, according to Unicef, makes slaves of about 250 million children in the world.

In view of the lack of practical measures to combat this kind of phenomenon, is the Commission aware of its existence and seriousness?

Will it endeavour to ensure that political pressure is brought to bear on countries which are known to allow child slavery?

Does it envisage, in collaboration with other international organisations working on behalf of children, to carry out projects to combat this appalling trade as a whole, tackling it both at source and at the final destinations (which unfortunately include Europe)? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/109

Does it not consider that effective cooperation should be established in this field with the ACP States, in the spirit of the partnership agreement with the EU actually signed in Cotonou, to include initiatives involving local police forces, in order to tackle the problem more decisively?

Does it not consider that there is an urgent need to call on the governments of the Member States to assign specific competences to Europol to combat trafficking in children?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

The Commission has explained its actions and comments on the problem of child trafficking in its answer to Oral Question H-0432/01 by Mrs Kratsa during question time at Parliament’s May 2001 part-session (1).

Europol already has the competence to combat child trafficking according to the Europol Convention of 26 July 1995 (2), article 2 §2 of which stipulates that ‘in order to achieve progressively the objective mentioned in paragraph 1, Europol shall initially act to prevent and combat (…) illegal immigrant smuggling and trade in human beings’.

Trafficking in human beings is one of the priorities of Europol. The Community Police Chiefs Operational Task Force discussed the subject at its meeting on 8-9 March 2001. They invited Europol to organise expert meetings, elaborate threat assessments and open Analysis Work Files.

The Commission submitted proposals for a Council framework decision on combating trafficking in human beings and on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (3) to the Council on 30 November 2000. The aim of these proposals is to remedy the absence of commonly adopted definitions, incriminations and sanctions in the Member States’penal legislation on these issues in order to develop an efficient judicial and law enforcement co-operation. These proposals are currently under examination by the Council and the Parliament.

(1) Oral answer, 15.5.2001. (2) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995. (3) OJ C 62 E, 27.2.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1429/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Delay in supplies of railway equipment rolling stock by European legislation

1. Can the Commission confirm that, with increased demand for passenger transport, it is becoming difficult for railway companies to obtain new rolling stock (rail-cars and train units) since the delivery time is three years even for an existing item?

2. Is the Commission also aware that the first year of this three year delivery period is taken up with fulfilment of the preliminary conditions for eligibility to participate in European tendering procedures?

3. As things now stand, what is the minimum amount of time taken between the decision to purchase new rolling stock and conclusion of a contract with the supplier?

4. What possibilities exist for introducing an accelerated procedure for ordering existing rolling stock from a supplier from whom such equipment has already been obtained on one or more previous occasions?

5. What action is being taken by the Commission to achieve a significant reduction in the waiting times caused by European legislation, so as to enable railway companies provide a more rapid and flexible response to the growing demand for increased rail capacity? C 364 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (18 July 2001)

As regards the opinion of the Honourable Member that, as a result of the application of the public procurement legislation, a twelve month period is effectively lost in relation to contracts for the supply of trains, the Commission would like to make the following observations.

The applicable directive, Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (1)as modified by Directive 98/4/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, of 16 February 1998 (2) obliges contracting entities falling within the scope of this directive, to issue a ‘call for competition’ in order to open up the European market and to create genuine competition.

The Directive contains a rather flexible system and foresees three different possibilities for contracting entities to make this call for competition, being: by means of a contract notice, by means of a periodic indicative notice or by means of a qualification system.

The Directive imposes time limits, the purpose of which is effectively to guarantee that there can be genuine competition. The time limits must therefore be sufficiently long to enable interested parties to submit valid tenders, taking into account the various factors (complexity of the contract, etc.) mentioned in the provision. These time limits are considered minimum periods and must be complied with. Where the complexity of a specific contract requires, a longer time limit should be defined by the contracting entity.

If a contracting entity chooses the first possibility for a call for competition, namely publication of a contract notice, it can choose to apply the open, restricted or negotiated procedure. In the open procedure, the time limit for receipt of tenders has to be 52 days, which may be shortened to 36 days where contracting entities have published a periodic indicative notice which is not used as a call for competition. In restricted and negotiated procedures, the directive prescribes that as a general rule, the time limit for receipt of requests to participate in the procedure shall be at least 37 days from the dispatch of the notice and shall in any case not be less than 22 days (or in exceptional cases: 15 days). To this time limit, the time limit for receipt of tenders must be added. The directive provides for this time limit to be fixed by mutual agreement between the contracting entity and the selected candidates. Where no agreement is reached, this time limit shall be at least three weeks and in any case not less than ten days from the dispatch of the invitations to tender.

When publishing a periodic indicative notice which serves as a call for competition, a contracting entity is bound to respect the same time limits as those set out above and which are applicable to restricted and negotiated procedures.

A qualification system enables contracting entities, after publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities, to establish a list of selected suppliers, contractors or service providers. For individual contracts, the contracting entity can invite the previously selected candidates to tender. The time limit for receipt of tenders is the same as for the open or negotiated procedure: either fixed by mutual agreement, or, if no agreement is reached, three weeks and in no case less than ten days from the dispatch of the invitations to tender.

Such a qualification system enables the contracting entities to save time for each individual contract as the selection phase has already been undertaken. At the same time, this enables the contracting entity to take into account previous experience in the field, which is a legitimate criterion for assessment of candidate’s capacity.

The above shows clearly that in no case will one year be ‘lost’ because of a European tender procedure. Indeed the time limits to be respected vary from about eight weeks (the longest time limit) to about three weeks or, where there is mutual agreement between the contracting entity and the candidates, even less than three weeks.

This time limit is not to be regarded as ‘wasted’ time, since, irrespective of whether the directive is applicable, for every purchase of a considerable sum, a contracting entity will have to consult the market in order to assess the different options which exist for fulfilling its needs.

The Commission therefore considers that the existing system, which lays down minimum time limits in order to guarantee that genuine competition is created and at the same time guarantees that candidates have a real opportunity to compete for the contract in question, allows for sufficient flexibility. Contracting entities may choose how to carry out a call for competition according to what best suits the situation. Moreover, the Commission is of the opinion that the applicable time limits do not unnecessarily delay the tender procedures. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/111

The Commission does not therefore envisage introducing changes in the existing legislative system to reduce the time limits set out in the directives.

In this respect the Commission underlines that in the proposal for modification of the existing legislation (3), adopted by the Commission on 10 May 2000, the applicable time limits are essentially the same. The only modification is a reduction of time limits where electronic means are used for dispatch of notices or where the contracting entities offer direct access to the specifications (and to other contract documents) free of charge via the Internet. The new provisions introduce the general rule that for specific phases of a tender procedure the time-limits may be shortened where notices are sent by electronic means. This mechanism takes into account the advantage deriving from rapid publication in the case of electronic transmission.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993. (2) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998. (3) OJ C 29 E, 30.1.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1437/01 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Illegal issue of visas and passports and entry of third country nationals into Greece and the EU

According to Greek press reports and allegations by the largest Greek opposition party, thousands of people from the countries of the former Soviet Union have illegally obtained visas and Greek passports and entered Greece. A committee of inquiry into the elections in Greece found that thousands of persons have been illegally naturalised although they were not entitled to Greek nationality. It should also be pointed out that despite Greece’s full participation in the Schengen acquis, a large number of violations have occurred (5 000 illegal naturalisations have been established at the Moscow consulate), and wanted Russian criminals illegally supplied with Greek passports have been arrested in Spain; there have also been allegations from Tiflis in Georgia where 150 Georgians a day apply for passport visas to enter Greece, visas which they obtain from circles operating in the vicinity of the Greek consulate in Tiflis. In Russia and in Georgia popular TV channels (for instance, Iveria and Rustavi 2 in Tiflis) carry advertisements providing information on how to obtain a visa and a Greek passport.

What is the Council’s position on these violations of Community rules by illegal naturalisations and the illegal issue of visas and passports and the entry into Greece, and thus the EU, (by unorthodox means)  and residence there  of thousands of persons on the basis of the Schengen acquis? How many visas, passports and naturalisations have been granted by the Greek authorities over the last few years, and what information is available concerning the illegal issue of visas and passports? What measures does the Council intend to take to eradicate practices which undermine the wholly desirable policy of legal immigration to the EU by evading controls, practices such as those of Greek Government and Diplomatic Corps officials who have abused their position and  despite the allegations brought against them  facilitated the illegal entry into the EU of thousands of citizens of the former USSR? Given that there has been a violation of the Schengen Agreement, have penalties been imposed on them by the Greek authorities responsible and, if so, what penalties?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

1. The Council attaches importance to the fight against document fraud. That is why experts have long been meeting in the Council working parties to exchange information and examine initiatives and proposals on the matter. However, under Community law as it currently stands, questions relating to naturalisation fall within the competence of the Member States, and not the Council’s. The Council is not empowered to take a position on a matter which does not fall within the spheres of competence granted to it by the Treaties. C 364 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

2. The Council does not have the statistical data requested by the Honourable Member.

3. and 4. The Council would inform the Honourable Member that, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, questions regarding immigration, visas and asylum fall within Community competence pursuant to Title IV of the TEC. It is therefore the task of the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, to check whether Member States fulfil their obligations in these matters.

(2001/C 364 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1442/01 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Plant for the production of refuse-derived fuel in Gallicano (Lucca), Italy

A plant for the production of refuse-derived fuel in Gallicano (Lucca) was co-financed by the Structural Funds (Objective 5b), despite the fact that the environmental impact of such plants is very significant, particularly in the area in question which is of great natural and cultural importance. It is clear that setting up such plants, in an area where recycling and separate collection of waste is very low, does not fit within the Community policy on waste management.

In general, does the Commission assess only the compliance of projects with Community legislation or also with the relevant priorities as set out in Community policies?

How does the Commission make sure that Article 6 of the Treaty is properly implemented and environmental protection integrated into other EU policies on a real and regular basis?

Is the Commission aware that if co-financing is granted whenever there is formal compliance with the relevant environmental legislation, but despite this, the environmental impact of a project is significant, this seriously aggravates environmental degradation?

Does the Commission agree that eligible projects must be selected not only for compliance with existing legislation but also on the basis of specific policy guidelines and a number of other crucial aspects, not least whether it is appropriate to set up certain kinds of industrial plants in particular areas?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

In the Structural Funds programming process, the national and regional authorities submit a regional development or conversion plan to the Commission. The plan puts forward the development priorities for the areas and sectors concerned according to the various Objectives. The Commission assesses the plan and negotiates with the competent authorities a programming document in the form of a multi-annual operational programme (OP) or Single Programming Document (SPD).

In assessing the plan and in the negotiation of programmes, the Commission verifies, inter alia, that the development strategy and the outline of priorities and measures comply with Community environmental legislation and policy, including the integration of the environmental protection requirements into the sectoral priorities in a sustainable development perspective. Concerning the waste measures in particular, projects receiving Structural Fund assistance must be consistent with the regional and local waste management plans established in conformity with Community directives and policy on waste.

In keeping with article 6 (ex Article 3c) of the EC Treaty, in the 2000-2006 programming period the integration of the environmental dimension within the Structural Funds has been further enhanced by the inclusion of an environmental ex-ante evaluation, which provides a basis for preparing the plans and programmes of which it shall form part. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/113

Once the Commission approves the OP or SPD, it is the responsibility of the competent authorities to implement it. According to the Structural Funds regulations (1), the selection of projects is within the discretion of those authorities. However, they have to ensure compliance of those projects with Community legislation and policies.

As far as the refuse-derived fuel plant in Gallicano (Lucca) is concerned, the regional authorities responsible for Objective 5b during the 1994-1999 programming period, provide evidence that the project was selected in conformity with the criteria for Measure 6.1 of the SPD ‘Interventi per l’organizzazione della raccolta, recupero ed innocuizzazione dei rifiuti di risulta da attività produttive’.

Moreover, it appears that this plant fits with the waste management plan, which has been established in conformity with Community directives and policy on waste, and it has been duly authorised as required by Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (2).

Given the plant owner’s request to increase the capacity above 100 tons/day, the project is currently undergoing an environmental impact assessment in conformity with Council Directive 85/337/EC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environnment (3), as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (4).

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. (3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 364 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1445/01 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Quebec agreement and relations between the EU and Latin America

A few days ago an agreement was signed in Quebec for the purpose of setting up a huge free-trade area encompassing all the countries of the American continent.

Could the Commission say what effect the agreement may have on the political and trade relations between the European Union and America?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

The Quebec Summit of the Americas of April 2001 did not lead to an acceleration of the integration process of the Americas, but rather confirmed the Declaration made by the Trade Ministers of 34 countries participating in the negotiations of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) at their meeting in Buenos Aires in April 2001 to ensure that negotiations of the FTAA Agreement are concluded no later than January 2005 and that the Agreement enters into force no later than December 2005.

The FTAA negotiations aim to further liberalise trade within the Western hemisphere by reducing barriers to trade and investment in order to generate economic growth and prosperity in the region. The Buenos Aires Ministerial Declaration emphasises the commitment of the participating countries to an open and balanced trading system and prevention of further barriers to trade and investment to countries outside the Western Hemisphere.

The Commission generally is not opposed to regional initiatives which aim to achieve further trade liberalisation as long as they comply with the internationally agreed rules of the World Trade Organisation, are mutually supportive to the global trading system and do not lead to the imposition of any new barriers to trade with other countries. C 364 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Given the current state of play of the FTAA negotiations, no in-depth analysis of the various elements is currently possible making it difficult to estimate the likely effects on trade between the Community and the countries of the future FTAA.

(2001/C 364 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1447/01 by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission (11 May 2001)

Subject: Cross-border banking charges after implementation of the euro

Can the Commission tell us how it intends to deal with the problem that cross-border banking charges are likely to remain high even when euros have fully replaced national currencies? How does it intend to avoid banks substituting transaction charges for lost currency conversion revenue?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (26 July 2001)

On 3 April 2001 the Commission adopted a communication on the preparations for the introduction of euro notes and coins (1). This report includes a description of the measures currently being taken to establish a euro payments area (2).

The Commission’s conclusion regarding this matter is quite unambiguous:

An urgent effort is … needed to bring about the establishment of a euro payments area. The Commission will consider using all the instruments at its disposal and will take all the steps necessary to ensure that the costs of cross-border transactions are brought more closely into line with the costs of domestic transactions on 1 January 2002.

The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member. It takes the view that all payments within the euro zone should receive similar treatment, be they domestic or cross-border payments. That is why it is examining the measures which could be taken to bring the charges for cross- border transactions closer into line with those of strictly domestic transactions.

(1) COM(2001) 190 final. (2) Page 43 of the report.

(2001/C 364 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1448/01 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission (17 May 2001)

Subject: Translation of regulations concerning the transport of dangerous goods

The new international regulations concerning the transport of dangerous goods have not yet been translated into Danish.

In Denmark, the regulations are only available in English. This makes it impossible for many Danish drivers to follow these regulations and for the police to monitor compliance with the regulations.

It is even harder for Danes to familiarise themselves with the regulations concerning rail transport since these are only available in French, a language only few Danes speak.

Would the Commission ensure that the new regulations concerning the transport of dangerous goods are translated into Danish by the date on which they are scheduled to come into force? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/115

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

The new rules for the transport of dangerous goods are given in Commission Directives 2001/6/EC (1) and 2001/7/EC (2) for rail and road transport respectively and they came into force as of 1 July 2001 with a delay of implementation until the end of year 2002. These directives are already published, but the detailed technical requirements of their Annexes will be published as soon as they have been translated into all the official languages of the Union.

These technical Annexes of nearly 1 000 pages each are nearly identical to the technical requirements of international agreements, namely the European Agreement concerning International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ADR) and Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID). Considering the size of the texts and conscious of the problems generated by the translations, the international agreements provide 18 months for the entry into force of the legislation. The same applies to the Community directives which state that Member States are required to implement both texts at least by 31 December 2002 (except for radioactive substances). Before that date the official Community translations will be available for all the languages.

In addition, irrespective of the availability of the text in Danish (or other languages of the Member States), every Member State may decide to implement the new rules only on 31 December 2002 and on the other hand, must accept until the 1 January 2003 on its territory the transport of dangerous goods, performed using the rules in force before 1 July 2001. During the period between 1 July 2001 and 31 December 2002 both sets of rules may be applied. The situation is the same internationally with third countries when using ADR and RID: there is the possibility to use either the ‘old’ rules or the ‘new’ rules. The safety of transport is guaranteed both ways and the transition period does not cause legal uncertainty.

In any case the Commission would like to assure that the Danish text will be available at the same time as the other language versions and this before the last date of implementation of the Directives, i.e. 31 December 2002.

(1) Commission Directive 2001/6/EC of 29 January 2001 adapting for the third time to technical progress Council Directive 96/49/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail (OJ L 30, 1.2.2001). (2) Commission Directive 2001/7/EC of 29 January 2001 adapting for the third time to technical progress Council Directive 94/5/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road (OJ L 30, 1.2.2001).

(2001/C 364 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1451/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Road transport of hazardous goods

The Greek press reports that, although the law on road transport of hazardous goods entered into effect a year ago, a large number of manufacturers and distributors of chemical products are in breach thereof and hazardous loads are therefore being transported by road without the required special markings and often with a disregard for safety measures.

The reasons put forward for these failings are:

 the small-scale economic operation of most road haulage firms does not enable them to employ the scientific staff (chemists) to assess the goods,

 the lack of knowledge of police forces about the hazardous substances, and

 the delay in training the staff of the National Centre for Chemical Products who are to help in carrying out more systematic checks. C 364 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Has provision been made for any ancillary measures to assist road hauliers in adapting to the new circumstances, to train police forces in the necessary specialist knowledge and to aid the General Chemical Laboratory in identifying, sorting, classifying and registering hazardous goods transported by road?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The transport of dangerous goods by road in the Community is regulated by Council Directive 94/55/EC of 21 November 1994 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road (1), as amended, which introduced harmonised rules for the transport of dangerous goods between the Member States as well as in national transport within the Member States.

In the context of Directive 94/55/EC and in order to further improve the level of safety in the transport of dangerous goods and to ensure a sufficient level of checks to be carried out in a harmonised way, the Council adopted on 6 October 1995 Directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road (2).

Furthermore an important role in the safety of transport of dangerous goods play the safety advisers, appointed according to Council Directive 96/35/EC of 3 June 1996 on the appointment and vocational qualification of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway (3).

In Greece no national legislation on transport of dangerous goods existed prior to Community legislation. The whole system of transport of dangerous goods was introduced in Greece with delays and there has been infringement proceedings against Greece. Now most of the legislation is in force and its practical implementation is on its way.

The Commission is aware of the complexity of the legislation and its enforcement and the resources needed for it, but at the same time this is a matter for the Member States need to address. In fact, there are no possibilities to this kind of specific actions in the limited transport safety budget.

On the other hand the Commission is confident that especially the recent implementation in Greece of Directives 95/50/EC on road checks (4) and 96/35/EC on safety advisers (5) and the practical action connected with them will in the near future improve the situation.

(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994. (2) OJ L 249, 17.10.1995. (3) OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, supplemented by Directive 2000/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2000 on minimum examination requirements for safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail or inland waterway (OJ L 118, 19.5.2000). (4) Implemented in Greece by Presidential Decree No 256/99 (Government Gazette I 209 of 11.10.1999). (5) Implemented in Greece by Joint Ministerial Decision No 64834-5491 on the transposition into Greek legislation of Council Directive 96/35/EC of 3 August 1996 on the appointment and vocational qualification of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway, and Directive 2000/18/EC of 17 April 2000 on minimum examination requirements of these safety advisers, 13 October 2000.

(2001/C 364 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1455/01 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Studies grant

What support has the Commission given to the Institute for Transition Economics? From which budget line? Which other institutes and establishments also received funds in the same year? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/117

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (26 July 2001)

In 1997 the Stockholm Institute for Transitional Economics was awarded a contract (following a tender procedure) for assistance to the Russia-Europe Centre for Economic Policy. The contract is funded from the budget line B7-520 (‘Assistance to partner States in eastern Europe and central Asia’) and it has a total value of € 2 149 824. A further contract was awarded in 1999 with total value of € 2 548 668. Lastly, a contract for € 123 244 was awarded last year.

In 2000, the Institute also received a payment of € 440 700 from budget line B6-641.

Support from budget line B7-520 for activities in eastern Europe and central Asia finances a very wide variety of projects and schemes, and over 500 contracts with consultants, experts, authorities and institutions are involved for the period covered by the Stockholm Institute contract.

(2001/C 364 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1456/01 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission (17 May 2001)

Subject: Seals

What support has the Commission given to projects concerned with the Mediterranean monk seal?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (16 July 2001)

Under the Habitats directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) Member States have to take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection in order to ensure a favourable status of conservation of the monk seal (Monachus monachus). Moreover, they must designate sites which will form part of the Natura 2000 ecological network.

The Commission is certainly aware that the Community has particular responsibility for this priority species, in view of the proportion of the natural range which falls within the territory of the Community.

Projects regarding this species may be submitted for Community cofinancing, according to relevant existing rules (a list for some of the projects or studies directly related to the Mediterranean area is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat). Upon the outcomes of these projects, the Commission tries to build new approaches aimed at improving the status of conservation of the species.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 364 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1457/01 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission (17 May 2001)

Subject: Disciplinary action against staff

If the Commission will list all cases in which staff have faced disciplinary action, together with the actions taken, amount of time required to reach a conclusion, the nature of the allegation, whether ‘whistleblow- ing’ activity was involved, and if further investigations were instigated and now concluded. C 364 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the comprehensive information provided in February for the purposes of the most recent discharge procedure which related to the 1999 Budget. Naturally, this information will be updated for the next discharge procedure.

In the follow-up to the budget discharge for 1999, the Commission stated that it would annually inform the discharge authority of all completed investigations which involve ‘whistleblowing’ and would give details, inter alia, of any follow-up action taken, including the launching of administrative or disciplinary proceedings and measures taken to protect the legal position of the whistleblower in question.

(2001/C 364 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1458/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) and Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Biological teatment of biodegradable waste

The practice of shredding solid biodegradable waste via food disposal units, with a view to evacuating it via the sewer, is widely used in the UK as well as for example in the USA.

Does the Commission accept that its proposals on this subject must pursue an integrated policy for waste management, permitting various processes rather than specifying composting as the sole way to manage food waste?

Does the Commission agree that banning one particular method of dealing with food waste, in defiance of national experience and in the absence of compelling and accepted scientific evidence in support of such a ban, would be inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

The prudent use of resources is an obligation arising out of the EC Treaty (Article 174, ex-Article 130a). Drinkable water is a very precious and limited resource that should be used with moderation and without wastage. Food waste disposal units are electrical devices normally installed under a kitchen sink and used to grind food waste with a view to evacuating it via the sewer. Drinkable water is normally used to carry the ground waste through the sewer to the wastewater treatment station.

The working document on the biological treatment of biodegradable waste (second draft of February 2001) elaborated by the Directorate general Environment for discussion with all relevant stakeholders suggests that the use of food waste disposal units should be limited. The Commission has so far taken no decision on restricting the use of food disposal units in the Community. Furthermore, the Commission has not specified composting as the sole way to manage food waste.

However, with regard to food waste disposal units, the following aspects deserve attention, especially with regard to an integrated waste management policy:

 Sewers are generally not engineered to carry solid waste and high density waste may slow down wastewater and cause pipe clogging;

 Solid waste in wastewater increases the energy demand at the wastewater treatment station in order to reduce the additional pollution provoked by solid waste; 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/119

 Sewage sludge production would be increased by 10 to 40 % because of solid waste in waste waters. Only 30 to 40 % of sewage sludge is used on land as fertiliser in the Community. The rest is either landfilled or incinerated. Moreover, sewage sludge is normally much more contaminated by heavy metals than compost from source separation of food waste;

 Urban waste water treatment plants are not built in order to deal with solid waste but with wastewater. Concerning the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/ EEC of 21 May 1991 (1), Member States and local authorities have already made their investments, which are based on wastewater volumes that do not include food waste.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2001/C 364 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1461/01 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Funding earmarked for nuclear energy research in the Sixth framework programme for research

The budget of the Sixth framework programme for research is due to grow by 17 % compared with the Fifth framework programme for research. However, it is intended that Euratom’s share of the Sixth framework programme will be reduced by 2,5 % compared with the Fifth framework programme.

Bearing in mind the growing importance of nuclear energy for an overall solution to the energy question in Europe, what is the Commission’s reason for such a marked reduction in the resources for research into nuclear energy?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission’s proposals for the next framework programmes (FP) for research (1) have been substantially restructured in comparison with the previous ones in order to make a reality of the European research area.

One of the main principles of the proposals is concentration on a selected number of priority research areas in which Community action can add the greatest possible value.

As regards research in the fields of nuclear waste treatment and storage, radiation protection and innovative concepts for new and safer processes of exploitation of nuclear energy, the level of Community funding remains as a whole roughly unchanged. The focus on nuclear waste should allow to assemble research efforts in the Community into a critical mass and to provide a common basis of knowledge available to waste management organisations.

The budget for fusion research was reduced from € 788 million in the Fifth framework programme on Research and Technological Development of the Community to € 700 million. The Commission proposal confirms the reactor orientation of the fusion energy research and reinforces the co-ordination at European level in the framework of the European Research Area. It gives a high priority to the realisation of the Next Step in the context of the international co-operation on the International Thermonuclear Energy Reactor (ITER) project and to the common use of the Joint European Torus (JET) Facilities. It emphasises Community support to multilateral projects with european added value and anticipates that Member States will bear a larger fraction of the programmes carried out at the national level by the associations. C 364 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The approach taken in the new Euratom framework programme proposal is in line with the Commission’s Green Paper ‘Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply’ (2).

(1) COM(2001) 94 final. (2) COM(2000) 769 final.

(2001/C 364 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1465/01 by Bruno Gollnisch (TDI) to the Council (21 May 2001)

Subject: Time-share holiday swindles

The number of abuses and swindles perpetrated by time-share holiday ‘professionals’ has been growing for several years now.

Hundreds of people have fallen and are still falling prey to these mafiosi of the tourist trade, who sell or resell annual stays in non-existent flats and then disappear into thin air once they have collected the money.

Such behaviour has in some cases seriously damaged the tourist industry’s reputation in several parts of Spain (particularly Tenerife and Denia), in south and south-west France (particularly Canet-Plage) and in French overseas departments (Guadeloupe).

Does the Council intend to carry out in-depth investigations into what already appears to be a serious problem?

Does it intend to take action against the agencies, companies and even banks that are knowingly involved in such cross-border swindles?

Does current European legislation on tourism and consumer protection provide for any specific measures on time sharing?

Were it to be established that, owing to the laxity of their public authorities, some States were failing to show the proper diligence in combating such activities, would the Council consider calling upon them to take action? If so, what procedure would it follow?

Reply (27 September 2001)

The Honourable Member should note that purchase of the right to use one or more immovable properties on a timeshare basis is governed by Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis (1). The purpose of that Directive is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating directly or indirectly to the purchase of the right to use one or more immovable properties on a timeshare basis.

The abuses and swindles in time-sharing mentioned by the Honourable Member are not, however, specifically suppressed by a European Union legal instrument.

However, many legal instruments adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union aim at considerably improving cooperation between the authorities responsible for combating international fraud.

Should Member States’ national legislation fail to provide a satisfactory answer to this problem, it would be incumbent on a Member State or the Commission to make use of its right of initiative by proposing that such activities be suppressed in a harmonised manner at European level.

(1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/121

(2001/C 364 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1469/01 by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Women and society in Afghanistan

In Afghanistan the Taleban introduced an ultra-fundamentalist regime based on religious fundamentalism and sex discrimination.

The civil war, which has been raging in the country for years, has created more than 5 million refugees, more than one million disabled people and widespread poverty.

Women are in a majority in a country which has more than 700 000 widows. Their families live in abject poverty made worse by the edicts of the Taleban forbidding women to work outside the home.

The ban on even elementary education for women is aggravating the already high level incidence of illiteracy and subjugation.

Whilst women are certainly those most affected by restrictions which are tantamount to a continual violation of human rights, the general state of civil society is also extremely bad.

What steps will the Commission take to offer support to the population oppressed by the present regime?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The Union’s objectives in Afghanistan, which the Commission shares are set out in its latest Common Position on Afghanistan of 22 January 2001 (1). They are: to bring about a lasting peace; to promote stability and development; to promote respect for international humanitarian law and human rights, including the rights of women and children; to provide effective humanitarian aid; to reinforce the fight against illegal drugs and terrorism; to assist peace building activities; and to support programmes, by non- governmental organisations (NGOs) and international aid agencies, for Afghan refugees in neighbouring countries.

The Union is active in all of these areas, although the emphasis depends on the circumstances prevailing at any given time. The Union supports peace initiatives, carries out diplomatic initiatives in its own right, forcefully bringing its views on the political, humanitarian and human rights situations in Afghanistan to the attention of the relevant factions in the country and in neighbouring countries.

With regard to activities carried out by the Community specifically targeted at women, it should be noted that all Community humanitarian aid projects in Afghanistan, which are in implementation in all areas of the country, are in favour of vulnerable groups and populations. Women and widows are included amongst these vulnerable groups and benefit from both specific projects as well as gender specific components of health projects, employment projects, particularly medical projects, but also in food for work and shelter projects and programmes.

It is important to note also that the situation of women in Afghanistan differs from region to region in those parts of the country under the control of the Taliban. Local political and tribal leadership attitudes and the determination of women themselves can play a significant role in improving the conditions of women and girls in society.

(1) OJ L 21, 23.1.2001. C 364 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1471/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Israeli taxes

The EU cannot remain indifferent to the statements made by Faysal Al Husseini, the Palestinian Authority’s Minister for Jerusalem Affairs, calling for a Holy War against Israel extending from Indonesia to Morocco, not least because the debate on the situation in the Palestinian territories not only  unfortunately  mentions violence, but also has social and economic implications.

Can the Commission therefore check every request for the reimbursement of taxes from Israel to the Palestinian Authority due to be paid in accordance with the agreements signed and to re-establish humanitarian aid only when the PA has undertaken to suspend terrorist acts and Israel has granted access for humanitarian aid workers and essential merchandise, making this dependent on an end to the Palestinian terrorist acts?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

The present system of transfers of clearance revenue (VAT and custom duties receipts) from the Israel State to the Palestinian Authority (PA) is provided for in Article VI of the 1994 Israeli-Palestinian Protocol on Economic Relations (the Paris Protocol). This system was, at the time, considered by the two parties as one of the major successes of co-operation between Palestinians and Israelis, making it possible to ensure or stabilise about 60 % of the budgetary income of the PA. The monitoring of these transfers is currently being undertaken by the International Monetary Fund.

Since the beginning of the current crisis in the Middle East, the Commission has provided a total of € 24,5 million in emergency aid, € 14,5 million alone to United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in response to its emergency appeal. Furthermore, the Commission has disbursed € 57,5 million from two reimbursable facilities established for the case of Israel not transferring tax receipts and customs revenues due to the Palestinian. Finally, a package of € 60 million in budgetary aid to the Palestinian Authority will be disbursed in monthly payments during the next six months.

Since the signature of the Oslo Agreement, the Union has  together with other international donors  consistently worked to support the creation and consolidation of a functioning administration for the West Bank and Gaza; in the belief that this is in the interest of the population and of greater stability in the region The assistance provided under the current crisis has been particularly crucial to meet the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population and, by allowing the Palestinian Authority’s ability to pay salaries and preserving the basic functioning of the Palestinian administration, to avoid the Palestinian territories slipping further into turmoil and chaos.

(2001/C 364 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1481/01 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: The EU-South Africa Fisheries Agreement

Does the Commission have any predictions about the likelihood of a successful outcome to the ongoing negotiations with South Africa on fisheries?

Are there any particular difficulties which are being encountered and is it the case that other agreements are being jeopardised by the position of certain Member States?

Is there any analysis of what the benefits of such an agreement with the EU would be for South Africa at the time? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/123

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

The Council of Ministers delivered to the Commission in September 1995 a negotiating directive to enter into negotiations and conclude a fisheries agreement with the Republic of South Africa.

Despite many attempts by the Commission to open the fisheries negotiation, South Africa was not in a position before December 2000, to accept a fisheries negotiation with the Community.

The 1st round of these negotiations took place in Brussels on 5-6 March 2001. The South African delegation forwarded a draft co-operation agreement on fisheries which excluded any access to South African fisheries.

The Commission delegation could not accept this draft and presented a complementary draft including access to South African fisheries. South Africa could not accept such a draft because it did not correspond to their negotiating mandate.

South Africa cancelled the 2nd round scheduled for early April 2001 in Cape Town.

The failure of the negotiating process is due to the South African reluctance to include in any fisheries agreement the issue of access to fisheries which, according to the Union mandate, is the main element of the fisheries agreement.

In fact the Commission, when it negotiates fisheries agreement with third countries, does not only take account of the Community fishing interest, but in addition need for sustainable development of the sector in the third country concerned.

The Union proposed draft fisheries agreement offered to South Africa a cooperation for the development of research, surveillance and transfer of technologies and would have promoted joint operations in fisheries between Union partners and South African partners.

Under these circumstances, a successful outcome of the negotiations with South Africa seems unlikely for the foreseeable future.

(2001/C 364 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1482/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Clergy and employment rights in the UK

Given that the UK, in the Employment Rights Act 1996, did not provide for any exclusion from the Council Directive 91/533/EEC (1) of 14 October 1991 for the clergy, is it the view of the Commission that they must be covered?

Does it not follow that any court ruling that the clergy are excluded cannot be made without a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice?

If such a ruling were made without a preliminary reference what remedy is available and should the Commission not take the matter up with the UK Government as a breach of Community law?

(1) OJ L 288, 18.10.1991, p. 32. C 364 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

Council Directive 91/533/EEC (Written Statement Directive) (1) specifies that employers are obliged to notify employees of the essential aspects of their contract or employment relationship. This includes information on the identities of the parties, the place of work and certain other working conditions.

This directive was implemented into British Law through the Employment Rights Act of 1996, which makes no specific provisions with respect to clergy.

Article 1 of the Directive deals with the scope of its application. The Directive applies only to ‘paid employee[s] having a contract or employment relationship defined by the law in force in a Member State and/or governed by the law in force in a Member State’ (Article 1(1)). If, according to British law, clergy do not have the status of paid employees in the meaning of that provision, they are therefore not covered by the provisions of the Employment Rights Act which implement the Directive.

The application of national legislation implementing Community Directives is subject to national judicial review. According to Article 234 (ex Article 177) of the EC Treaty, a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice is required if any question concerning (i) the interpretation of the EC Treaty, (ii) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community and of the European Central Bank, or (iii) the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an act of the Council, where those statutes so provide, is raised before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law. The Commission is not aware of such cases in the UK with respect to Directive 91/ 533 and clergymen.

If a national court or tribunal would not comply with its obligations under Article 234 of the EC Treaty it would commit an infringement of treaty rules for which the Member State would be responsible.

(1) Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (OJ L 288, 18.10.1991).

(2001/C 364 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1484/01 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Catalan and the European Year of Languages

A study on Europeans and languages commissioned by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture is being carried out at INRA (Europe) and it was decided, for the purposes of this study, to add Turkish and sign language to the official languages of the European Union.

Since there are other official languages in Europe, such as Catalan, which is spoken in three EU countries (Spain, Italy and France) by a total of 10 million people, is the official language in a Member State of the UN (Andorra) and one of the official languages in Spain, can the Commission explain why it did not include Catalan in this study?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The objective of the survey in question was to obtain general information on Europeans’ knowledge of and attitudes to languages and language learning. The survey was conducted according to standard Eurobarometer methodology, based on a random sample of about 1 000 people in each Member State. The list of languages coded in the survey was drawn up on the basis of previous experience with such surveys according to expectations of interviewee responses that would give rise to statistically significant 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/125

results. This list was not shown to interviewees, but used by interviewers to classify spontaneous answers to questions. Interviewees were not prompted. Answers citing languages other than those listed were classified as ‘other language’.

Despite sophisticated statistical techniques aimed at ensuring even coverage of the whole territory of the Union, the survey could not be expected to produce statistically significant results for languages like Catalan, spoken by part of the population concentrated in a particular region. In response to the question ‘What is your mother tongue?’, 47 of the 1 000 Spanish interviewees cited a language not included in the list. For Europe as a whole, 1,8 % of answers to this question fell into this category.

However, the Commission has undertaken an in-depth study of regional and minority languages (the Euromosaic study) which contains information on the number of speakers of Catalan and other languages spoken in Europe that are not official languages of the Union. This information is available at the following web site http://www.uoc.es/euromosaic or in print form from the Official Publications Office.

(2001/C 364 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1485/01 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Identity checks at Charles de Gaulle airport

One of the major steps forward for a People’s Europe was the Schengen Agreement and its incorporation, through the protocol adopted at the European Council in Amsterdam, into the body of law on the basis of which the European Union functions. However, one of the essential principles of the free movement of persons within the Union, that is to say an end to systematic identity checks on Europeans travelling in the Schengen area, is currently being flouted at Charles de Gaulle airport in Roissy in France. Each passenger travelling towards a destination within the Union is required by the Air France company to undergo identity checks carried out by a security firm prior to entry into the departure lounges, requiring them to pass through metal detectors.

What action does the Council intend to take in response to this new obstacle to freedom of movement?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, matters concerning immigration, visas and asylum, including border control, fall within Community competence pursuant to Title IV of the TEC. It is thus for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to ascertain whether Member States are fulfilling their obligations in these matters.

(2001/C 364 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1488/01 by Jean-Claude Martinez (TDI) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Fraud involving animal meal

In order to combat BSE or mad cow disease, France imposed a ban on animal meal intended for cattle in July 1990 and, in July 1996, stepped up this measure by excluding ‘specified risk material’ (SRM) such as the brain, the spleen or the spinal cord. C 364 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

However, a case has recently come to light revealing the manufacture and fraudulent trade of several thousand tonnes of animal meal intended for cattle which appears to have continued after 1996.

Given the gravity of the situation and the public health risk involved, what steps will the Commission take?

Does it still consider it appropriate to reintroduce animal meal, even for non-ruminants, as it has previously suggested?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The French judicial authorities are investigating the allegation of fraud on meat and bone meal. The European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) is being informed of developments.

Based on the results to date of the inspections carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office, and the differing scale of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) testing in different Member States, it is the Commission’s view that it is premature to suggest lifting the complete suspension of the feeding of meat and bone meal to livestock. The current suspension which was due to expire on 30 June 2001, has, therefore, been extended. In the meantime, efforts are continuing towards the adoption by the Council and Parliament, and implementation by Member States, of the Regulation on animal by-products not intended for human consumption (1).

This Regulation requires:

(a) that only animal by-products derived from animals fit for human consumption may be used for animal feed;

(b) a complete separation during collection, storage, transport, processing and use of animal waste not intended for animal feed;

(c) a complete separation of rendering plants dedicated to feed production from rendering plants processing other animal waste; and

(d) stricter rules for traceability of animal by-products (including control on the movement of specified risk material by means of record keeping systems, accompanying documents or health certificates and marking of animal proteins and fats intended for destruction).

(1) OJ C 96 E, 27.3.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1489/01 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Recruitment of OHIM staff

Given reports that:

 the OHIM agency (Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market), which is responsible for trademarks, designs and models and is based in Alicante, does not use competitions to recruit new staff;

 when new vacancy notices are published, candidates who submit applications that fulfil the stated requirements are not invited to an interview;

 in the last vacancy notice for category A staff (reference 00/24/A/CHR, closing date for submitting applications was 15 October 2000), no document other than a curriculum vitae was requested;

 in April 2001 an applicant was rejected without receiving any explanation; 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/127

How does the Commission propose to ensure the adoption of a procedure which would lend transparency to staff selection criteria and provide appropriate justification for the process of exclusion?

Does the Commission intend to publish the original criteria for recruitment?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (23 July 2001)

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) applies the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (CEOS). However, the OHIM enjoys a large degree of administrative autonomy including in its recruitment policy.

According to the instrument establishing the agency  the Community Trade Mark Regulation  the Commission’s role is limited to checking the legality of the decisions of the President and the Budget Committee, for which no appeal is provided. Issues concerning recruitment of staff are subject to appeal to the court of First Instance. The Commission does not hold voting rights in the Administrative Board of the OHIM.

Without further detailed information the Commission is not in a position to comment on the reports mentioned by the Honourable Member. However, the OHIM has informed the Commission that, on the particular occasion referred to in the question, the Office erroneously sent out letters of rejection to unsuccessful candidates without including the usual justification for rejection which was that other, more suitable, candidates had been selected from among the applications received.

In the past, the OHIM has chosen to use internal competitions for recruitment of officials. The Commission understands, however, that procedures for external competitions are currently under consideration.

Additional information on the selection procedures of the OHIM is best obtained directly from the Agency.

(2001/C 364 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1493/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (18 May 2001)

Subject: Management of biodegradable waste

The Commission’s draft proposals for a directive on this subject have a primary aim of reducing the amount of organic material going to landfill.

In what ways do they recognise and accommodate the need for certain sectors, such as packaging, to meet EU recycling targets?

Answer given Mrs de Wallström on behalf of the Commission (18 July 2001)

The Commission has so far taken no decision on whether to adopt a Proposal for a Directive on the biological treatment of biodegradable waste. The working document on the biological treatment of biodegradable waste (second draft of February 2001), elaborated by Directorate general (DG) Environment, outlines some of the issues that may be of relevance, should the Commission decide to propose a Directive on the matter to Council and Parliament.

Insofar as packaging recycling is concerned, the Commission notes that the opinion of Member States (as expressed so far in the Commission working groups on biodegradable waste management) on so-called ‘bio-plastics’ is divided. While in principle recognising that packaging made of compostable plastics fulfilling CEN standard EN 13432 on ‘Packaging  Requirements for packaging recoverable through composting and biodegradation  Test scheme and evaluation criteria for the final acceptance of C 364 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

packaging’ is perfectly fit for being composted, some Member States have misgivings about the practical arrangements that would guarantee such an approach. In particular, the impact on the purity of the biowaste fraction separately collected is questioned. Consumers may not distinguish between packaging meeting the standard from other types of a similar visual appearance.

The Commission is aware of this possible conflict between a higher material recycling rate of packaging and compost quality. Should the Commission decide to present a Proposal for regulating composting and anaerobic digestion of biowaste to Council and Parliament, this aspect will be duly evaluated.

(2001/C 364 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1495/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Animal testing and the Chemicals Strategy

In view of the fact that much public concern about the proposed Chemicals Strategy is focused on the very large number of animals which will suffer and die in order to carry out safety testing, how have the views of the Commission regarding the requirement for animal testing changed since its proposals were first published, and what steps is it now considering to reduce the number of animals required for testing purposes?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

The Commission is indeed aware of the public concern over the use of laboratory animals for testing chemical products. This concern was reflected in the correspondence received during the preparation of the White Paper. However, the Commission was already committed, and remains committed, to promoting the welfare of laboratory animals, in particular through the provisions of Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (1). It is important to reduce the number of animals used in experiments, to replace animal experiments by non-animal methods and to refine experimental methods to reduce suffering is important in this respect.

It was against this background that the proposals in the White Paper were prepared. Indeed one of the political objectives of this paper was that ‘Protection of human health and the environment, including wildlife, should be balanced against protection of the welfare of laboratory animals’.

The following elements of the new strategy have been developed with a view to keeping animal testing to a minimum:

 existing information on the toxicity and ecotoxicity of substances, including epidemiological studies, will be taken into account,

 the general testing requirements will be modified to incorporate exposure-driven testing where appropriate,

 tailor-made testing programmes for substances will be developed under the control of authorities for level 1 and 2 testing,

 the development of further alternative testing methods using fewer or no animals will be encouraged and supported,

 existing substances will be grouped to minimise testing, where appropriate,

 for existing substances of between 1t and 10t annual production, testing will generally be limited to in-vitro methods. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/129

Furthermore, a significant proportion of the chemicals are not for further examination until 2008-2012. By this time, new non-animal test methods are expected to be available as a result of the planned research programmes into the development and validation of such methods, which include, inter alia, the Commission’s framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities that have played, since 1985, an active role in funding research into the development of in- vitro alternatives to animal experiments for toxicological and pharmacological purposes. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) will play an essential role in further developing this approach.

The Commission is far from complacent about this issue and is working on plans for the implementation of the above elements. In preparing these plans, the Commission will consider the comments received from all stakeholders during the consultation on the White Paper.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.

(2001/C 364 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1497/01 by Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Troika visit to Algeria

During the visit to Algeria by the President of the Council of the EU, Mrs Anna Lindh, and the High Representative Mr Javier Solana, one of the subjects discussed in talks with the Algerian authorities was the situation in Western Sahara.

It is no secret that implementation of the peace process in Western Sahara, consisting in the holding of a referendum, is encountering considerable difficulties, which have led to a virtual standstill. Aware of this situation, the UN Secretary-General Mr Kofi Annan stated, in his report to the Security Council in February 2001, that he had asked the Moroccan authorities for a set of proposals on opening political negotiations between the two sides in order to break the deadlock. This will mean the opening of a new phase and a new opportunity, in which the EU should not shirk its responsibilities or fail to exert its influence.

In this situation, is the Commission aware of its capacity to influence the two sides and help to overcome an impasse which, in addition to causing great suffering to the population concerned, is threatening a resumption of violence and increasing tension in the Maghreb?

Does the Commission consider that the EU should develop an active role to assist a peaceful settlement of the Western Sahara question?

In the light of the latest meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Arab Maghreb Union held recently in Algiers, and the subsequent statements by those responsible for the EU’s Euro-Mediterranean policy aimed at boosting the processes of sub-regionalisation and South-South cooperation, does the Commission consider that the necessary development of an open market in the Maghreb is feasible without the prior agreement of the two sides regarding the dispute over Western Sahara?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission fully support the United Nations (UN) Settlement plan for Western Sahara and the continued efforts of the Personal Envoy of the Secretary General, Mr James A. Baker, for a durable, just and mutually agreed resolution to the dispute.

The Commission is currently exploring possible ways of contributing positively to the process, in a manner that would strengthen and complement the efforts by the United Nations (UN) and the Personal Envoy at this critical juncture. C 364 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The Commission is ready to exert its influence on both sides in order to convince them of the importance of direct talks on proposals that might be put forward by the Personal Envoy. The Commission is also ready to give assistance to the implementation of the various stages of the United Nations (UN) Settlement Plan, namely at the phases of voters identification, repatriation and rehabilitation of the territory. The Commission had communicated this availability to Mr Baker with whom it remains in contact.

The Commission continues to provide, through its non-governmental organisations (NGO’s) partners, food and medico-sanitary aid for the saharawi in Tindouf. This aid has to-date reached € 56 million. An additional € 10 million medico-sanitary and rehabilitation pack has been approved for the current year. This constitutes a considerable increase in relation to previous years.

The construction of the Arab Maghreb Union will be very difficult without a proper resolution of this conflict.

(2001/C 364 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1501/01 by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Rare disorders

The programme on rare disorders was adopted in 1999 and demonstrated that there was a real political priority to develop a policy on rare diseases at European level. Now, two years later, it seems the Programme for rare diseases will disappear. All actions undertaken during these two years are now put at risk and the existence of networks and associations is threatened.

Will there be a third call for proposals on rare diseases? What is the future for rare diseases in the framework of the new Public Health Programme and how can the Commission ensure that as part of implementation, some action is taken on rare diseases?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission considers rare diseases and orphan pharmaceutical products as an area where a high European added value can be achieved and where Community action is needed.

The Community strategy in this domain has been developed in three main policy areas:

 research on rare diseases conducted with the Community framework programmes for Research and Technological Development; the proposal for the next framework programme (2002-2006), as was the case for the Fifth, contains an explicit reference to rare diseases.

 pharmaceutical policy: the Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (1) is now an acquis communautaire that is producing concrete benefits for rare diseases patients.

 public health policy: the programme of Community action 1999-2003 on rare diseases represents an important step in the consolidation of the Community policy for this area of public health. Last year, the Commission proposed a new Community public health programme (2) to achieve a better focused approach and synergies between the various actions. The Commission proposal is currently being examined by the Parliament and the Council. This programme will replace all the eight existing public health programmes. The new programme has three main strands of actions:  Improving health information;  Responding rapidly to health threats;  Addressing health determinants. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/131

No specific diseases are mentioned in the future programme to ensure flexibility over the next six years. Projects on rare diseases will certainly continue. The setting up of a European information network on rare diseases, as defined in the rare diseases programme, could be taken up as part of the health information system. The surveillance of certain rare diseases, including work on clusters, may be continued under the ‘rapid reaction’. The proposed programme puts an emphasis on informing and consulting stakeholders in the health field, including representative organisations of patients.

During the forthcoming months a specific call for proposals will be published to ensure the execution of the public health budgetary appropriations in 2002.

(1) OJ L 18, 22.1.2000. (2) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.

(2001/C 364 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1504/01 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Transport of animals

In December 2000 the Commission published a report on the implementation and enforcement of the Transport Directive 91/628/EEC (1) as amended by 95/29/EC (2). It clearly states that most Member States are not properly enforcing the rules which are designed to protect the welfare of transported animals. The Commission is also going to propose certain changes to the directive and the annexes, although Parliament will only be asked to give an opinion on proposals to change the articles of the directive at some time in the future. The uncontrolled and sometimes illegal transporting of animals (particularly sheep) to slaughter has been responsible for the rapid spread of foot-and-mouth disease in the UK, France, Netherlands and Germany. Those sheep would have suffered even if they had not been infected by this dreadful disease.

Does not the Commission agree that changes to the transport rules, more radical than those mentioned in the report, are necessary and the Parliament should be asked to give its opinion on all proposals to amended the directive including the annexes?

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

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The necessity to limit the long distance transport of animals to absolutely essential journeys and to keep any suffering to a minimum are especially important objectives for the Commission.

The Commission agrees that stricter rules are essential to improve the current situation even if it is not possible to prevent unacceptable treatment of animals simply through legislation or controls. In this respect, the Commission stresses that it is imperative that Member States ensure strict implementation of the Community legislation in place.

In relation to new legislation the Commission has very recently taken initiatives:

 to prevent the transport of injured or sick animals, the Commission adopted Decision 2001/298/EC of 30 March 2001 amending the Annexes to Council Directives 64/432/EEC, 90/426/EEC, 91/68/EEC and 92/65/EEC and to Commission Decision 94/273/EC as regards the protection of animals during transport (1) to amend veterinary certificates for intra-Community trade of livestock in order to refer to the fitness of the animals to be transported; C 364 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

 to improve the standards of the vehicles, the Commission adopted on 9 April 2001 a proposal for a Council Regulation concerning ventilation systems of road vehicles used for journeys exceeding eight hours (2).

An additional proposal amending Directive 91/628/EEC will also be presented aiming at further improving the situation. Furthermore on receipt of a new opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Welfare expected for the end of 2001, a redefinition of travelling times and loading densities will be considered.

When drafting the proposal amending Directive 91/628/EEC, the Commission will also consider the latest developments that have affected animal transport in Europe and in particular in the light of the recent foot-and-mouth disease epidemic.

The procedure to amend Directive 91/628/EEC, including its annex, is based on Article 37 (ex Article 43) of the EC Treaty. This article provides for the Parliament to be consulted.

(1) OJ L 102, 12.4.2001. (2) COM(2001) 197 final.

(2001/C 364 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1510/01 by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Council (21 May 2001)

Subject: Council President’s statements in North Korea

During his visit to North Korea, the President of the Council, Göran Persson, described that country’s dictator, Kim Jong Il, as a ‘lively, well-informed and open man’, according to the Swedish (pro-government) newspaper Aftonbladet.

Does the Council consider this to be an apt description of a tyrant with the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people on his conscience?

Reply (27 September 2001)

The Council has made no secret of its concerns regarding the human rights situation in North Korea. Those concerns form an integral part of the Union’s policy towards North Korea. This was clear, for example, in the lines of action which the Council adopted in November 2000. The Council therefore welcomes the agreement reached with the DPRK during the recent high-level EU visit to Pyongyang to begin discussions on human rights issues. An exploratory meeting to this end was held between the EU and DPRK in Brussels on 13 June. The Council hopes that the DPRK will be ready to enter into a substantive dialogue, which will bring early, concrete and significant improvements to the dismal human rights and humanitarian situation in the country.

(2001/C 364 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1512/01 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission (21 May 2001)

Subject: Age limit applicable in Open Competition COM/A/6/01 (OJ C 110, 11.4.2001, p. 15) for the recruitment of administrators

In April 2001, the Commission published in the daily newspaper ‘Die Presse’ the eligibility requirements relating to Open Competition COM/A/6/01 for the recruitment of some 150 administrators. Under Section B of the notice (Special conditions), the Commission stipulated that candidates must not be older than 45. Accordingly, only persons born after 25 May 1955 were eligible to take part in the competition. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/133

Does the Commission normally lay down age limits for its competitions?

If so, have any potential candidates who have been unable to take part in competitions because of the age restriction lodged complaints against the Commission?

If so, why has the Commission not taken those complaints as grounds for abolishing the age restriction?

On what criteria was the age limit based on 25 May 1955 selected for this competition?

What advantage does the Commission expect to derive from restricting entry to persons who are under 45?

Given that the proportion of employable young people in Europe has been constantly diminishing because of the declining birth rate, lengthier periods of training, etc., would not the Commission be best advised to consider abandoning the practice of laying down age limits?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The Commission agreed to the principle of abandoning age limits for recruitment in January 1998. It also expressed the view that a co-ordinated approach on this matter was needed amongst all the European Institutions. As a result  and in order to be consistent with the approach of Parliament as an employer  the Commission adopted an interim solution by introducing a higher age limit of 45 years, instead of 35 years, for its competitions for recruitment at basic grades.

As a general rule the age limit for competitions for recruitment at basic grades such as A7/A6, B5/B4 or C5/C4 is currently 45 years, and that applied to competition COM/A/6/01. The application of an age limit in the notices of competition is in full compliance with Article 1(g) of Annex III of the Staff Regulations.

To date, three complaints have been received that relate to the competition referred to in the Hon Member’s question. They will be considered by the Selection Board. That Board is independent and sovereign in its decision on the admission of candidates on the basis of the criteria set out in the notice of competition.

The Commission is reforming its administrative practices and it reaffirmed the commitment to abandoning age limits for open competitions in Part II of the White Paper (1) of 1 March 2000.

The Honourable Member may wish to note that the provisions of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establish a general framework for equal treatment, employment and occupation and that Article 6 allows for differences of treatment on grounds of age where these are objectively and reasonably justified. In particular Article 6, 1c allows for differences of treatment on grounds of age through the fixing of a maximum age for recruitment where this is based on the training requirements of the post in question or the need for a reasonable period of employment before retirement. The approach of the Commission is, naturally, consistent with Community law.

(1) COM(2000) 200 final.

(2001/C 364 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1518/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Licensing of free miners in the Forest of Dean

While one perfectly understands the needs for free miners to be licensed by the relevant authorities, what seems unclear is why there must be a substantial charge to such licences. C 364 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The free miners are told that this is because of European legislation. Could the Commission confirm that this is the case and, if it is, what measures they will take to amend the necessary regulations to avoid individuals being forced to pay such high fees in future?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

The Member States are the owners of their mining and energy resources and, as such, entitled to grant mining licences.

There is no Community legislation on the granting of licences for coalmining. The United Kingdom has notified the Commission that the Coal Authority is the body responsible for this.

It must, however, be noted that, pursuant to Article 67 of the ECSC Treaty, ‘If the action taken by [a Member State] reduces differences in production costs by allowing special benefits to or imposing special charges on the coal or steel undertakings within its jurisdiction in comparison wit the other industries in the same country, the Commission is empowered to make the necessary recommendations to that State after consulting the Consultative Committee and the Council.’

The Commission has received no such notification from the United Kingdom.

(2001/C 364 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1521/01 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Renewable energies project on the island of El Hierro (Canaries)

The island of El Hierro (Canaries) could become a European reference point for the use of clean energies. Adopting the motto ‘100 % renewable energies’, the island council of El Hierro has been working for some years on a project designed to make this Spanish island, which has a surface area of 278 km2 and 9 000 inhabitants, into the first in the world to supply itself entirely from alternative energies in full harmony with environmental protection.

A feasibility study is being carried out and the technical data could not be more positive. The parameters studied indicate that the project could be viable. The only thing which remains to be done is to secure the necessary funding to make this initiative  which is unique in Europe and represents a model of sustainable development  a reality, on an island whose entire territory was recently declared a biosphere reserve by Unesco. A sustainable development plan has been in force on the island since 1996, in line with its status as a biosphere reserve.

Can the Commission say whether its policy on promoting and encouraging the development of renewable energies in Europe, announced by Commissioner de Palacio on many occasions, might embrace a project such as that described above?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

The Commission White Paper ‘Energy for the future: renewable energy sources’ mentions as a key initiative, the 100 % renewable energy sources (RES) supply launched as part of the campaign for take off. This initiative is addressed to communities like regions, cities and islands that could reasonably obtain a 100 % of their power supply from renewable energy sources. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/135

The island of El Hierro (Canaries) participates in the Islands 2010 initiative, an Altener project cofinanced by the Commission which takes on board the main ideas of promoting the incorporation of new the 100 % RES communities.

A wind energy plant combined with hydroelectric production has been co-financed too in the frame of Altener.

Reflecting the Commission interest on renewable energy sources, a new target call of the Fifth framework programme of Research and Technology Development (1998-2002) of the Community, ‘Sustainable communities’ was launched at the end of 2000. This call is part of one of the thematic programme ‘Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development’.

In this call priority is given to integration of renewable energy sources and distributed generation of energy systems. A second call is open now with a closing date on the 14th of December 2001.

The Commission, as part of its policy for encouraging the development of renewable energies in Europe has launched this specific call under the Fifth framework programme. The project of El Hierro could be eligible under this call if conditions like added Community value and innovation would be fulfilled.

For more detailed information, please consult the website: http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/home.html.

Finally, in its proposal for a Directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (1), the Commission proposes a 22 % contribution by renewable energy to the total electricity consumption. Council adopted its common position on the Directive on 23 March 2001 (2). The text of the common position was approved by Parliament in second reading on the 4th of July 2001.

(1) OJ C 311, 31.10.2000. (2) OJ C 142, 15.5.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1524/01 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Unequal treatment of EU citizens by a Swedish supermarket chain

The Swedish supermarket chain ICA pursues a policy of issuing a shoppers’ card to its customers who may then save money by taking advantage of various special offers in ICA supermarkets. A lady who is not a Swedish national applied for such a card but was rejected on the grounds that she did not possess an ‘identity number’. ICA claimed that it was obliged to reject her application and referred to Swedish legislation on tax returns and annual statements. According to ICA, the fact that non-Swedish nationals pay taxes (including property taxes) in Sweden and hold a Swedish bank account is immaterial.

1. ICA invokes Swedish tax legislation. Can the Commission indicate whether ICA is correct in so doing? If it is correct, to what extent does the Commission believe that such legislation is in breach of the relevant European Union legislation? Does the Commission agree with me that application of this Swedish legislation results in direct discrimination?

2. If the possession of an identity number is so important under Swedish law, does the Commission agree with me that the Swedish Government is obliged to issue the person involved with such identity numbers, given that she is legally resident in Sweden and pays property taxes there?

3. Does the Commission deem it admissible for non-nationals to be the subject of discrimination in so far as they regularly have to pay higher prices than nationals for the same products?

4. To what extent does this situation apply in other Swedish supermarkets?

5. Is the Commission prepared to point out to the Swedish Government and to ICA that they may be guilty of discrimination? C 364 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2001)

The Commission would like to offer the following answer in response to the honourable Member’s question:

 On the basis of the information that the Commission has at the moment, the Swedish legislation to which the honourable Member refers does not apparently impose discrimination based on the possession of a personal identity number. It seems that this discrimination stems from the decision of the Swedish supermarket chain, which thus has no valid justification in referring to Swedish legislation. As for the fourth part of the question, the Commission has no information regarding similar practices by other supermarkets in Sweden.

 However, in order to obtain fuller and more accurate information, the Commission has sent a letter to the supermarket chain and to the Swedish authorities requesting further details.

 As soon as the Commission has this information, it will provide the honourable Member with results of its investigation as quickly as possible.

(2001/C 364 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1526/01 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Transport of animals by sea

According to a report from a Dutch national sailing as a passenger on a cargo boat, large numbers of animals are being transported by sea from the United Kingdom and Ireland, frequently in closed containers with wire mesh on one side only, in pitiable conditions.

Can the European Commission indicate the extent of such transport and the European Union legislation which is applicable to the transport of animals by sea?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Transport by sea is mainly used by the United Kingdom to export sheep to the continent. Export of live cattle from the United Kingdom has been forbidden since 1996 because of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. Exports of live sheep are now also banned because of foot-and-mouth disease.

Transport by sea is largely used by Ireland to export cattle to other Member States and third countries. However it should be mentioned that Ireland has adopted specific rules for the transport of animals by sea that go further than Community legislation in this field.

Transport by sea is also used regularly to export cattle to some third countries (mainly Middle East and North Africa).

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), lays down Community standards for the protection of animals during transport. General principles of the Directive as well as special provisions of that same Directive apply to the transport of animals by sea.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991. (2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/137

(2001/C 364 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1527/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Adulterated wine in Western Portugal

At the end of March this year various media reported that in Western Portugal 25 million litres of wine adulterated by the addition of water and spirits made from sugar cane or sugar beet had been seized.

The firm responsible had apparently already adulterated wine exported to Angola in this way in the past and had been discovered as a result of an investigation carried out by national and Community authorities, since the product received Community support for wine exports.

Can the Commission say:

 whether it knows of any cases of wine being adulterated by a firm in Western Portugal which has received Community export aid and, if so,

 how much the aid was worth and what measures were taken?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) reported that it had conducted an investigation in 1999 into exports of wine to Angola by a Portuguese company based in Lageosa Do Dao. The investigation found that the company in question had systematically employed illegal wine-making practices to increase the alcoholic strength of the wine, receiving export refunds worth € 11 million to which it was not entitled.

OLAF’s final report on the investigation was sent to the Portuguese administrative and legal authorities in March 2000. The Portuguese administrative authorities began the recovery procedure on 28 July 2000.

The Portuguese authorities issued two communications in 2000 on the basis of Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an information system in this field (1).

OLAF also announced that it had requested information from the Portuguese authorities on 10 April 2001 following further reports in the Portuguese press in March 2001. The Portuguese authorities replied that the evidence in their possession led them to conclude that no Community funds were involved in this case. They also invoked the confidentiality of the investigation. This case did not give rise to any communication under Regulation (EEC) No 595/91. This Regulation requires Member States, during the two months following the end of each quarter, to communicate to the Commission a list of irregularities which have been the subject of primary administrative or judicial findings of fact.

(1) OJ L 67, 14.3.1991.

(2001/C 364 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1533/01 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: The Commission’s attitude towards nuclear power

Does the Commission share Loyola de Palacio’s positive attitude towards nuclear power, and does it regret the decisions by Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany to decommission their nuclear power stations? C 364 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Nuclear power contributes significantly (about 35 %) to electricity production within the Community and, accordingly, mitigates the Community’s dependency on imported fossil fuels and the Community’s green house gas emissions. On the other hand, its public acceptability is hampered due to public concern regarding waste disposal and safety.

These aspects are discussed in the Commission’s Green Paper ‘Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply’ (1). The purpose of the Green Paper is to provide the necessary transparency to political decision makers and the public regarding today’s supply security issues and to launch a debate with a view to developing the necessary strategy for the three to four decades to come. The Green Paper has been adopted by the Commission and therefore reflects the views of the College on this question.

The various moratoria on nuclear power adopted by some of the Member States have also been considered. Member States have a sovereign right to decide for themselves whether to rely on nuclear energy for electricity production or to phase it out. The Commission respects this right, while at the same time considering that security of supply and environmental protection concerns make it necessary to examine the present situation of nuclear energy and its potential for the future with an open mind and on the basis of objective facts. The Green Paper shows that the absence of nuclear energy would make it even more difficult to tackle climate change in the long term.

In the meantime, it is necessary to progress towards the development and implementation of a sustainable approach to the disposal of nuclear wastes and to ensure adequate research in this sector.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.

(2001/C 364 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1541/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Prevention of animal diseases by allowing agricultural markets to take better account of natural biological laws

1. In the Commission’s view what are the possibilities of preventing the rapid dissemination of plant and animal diseases and the transfer of pests and infectious animals over long distances, given that natural geographical barriers which may limit or prevent this are to an increasing extent disappearing as a result of trade and transport operations?

2. In the Commission’s view, what measures could be taken to prevent the transport of seed and breeding animals over long distances which results from the concentration of agricultural production in areas where the lowest production costs are anticipated and to prevent the final product being traded over long distances, thereby increasing the risk of the spread of diseases?

3. Does the Commission regard as acceptable the continued failure within the territory of the Member States of the European Union to exploit the possibilities offered by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to make the import of plants, animals and foodstuffs subject to strict health rules?

4. What new and more comprehensive arrangements are being envisaged by the Commission to prevent a further spread of BSE, swine fever, foot-and-mouth infection and other diseases?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

1. and 2. Increased movements of people, animals and goods throughout the world and globalisation of agricultural markets imply additional risks of spreading human, animal and plant diseases. Given the 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/139

complexity of these issues, to which only a formal answer can be given in this reply, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to its White Paper on Food Safety (1), where detailed information is provided on the Commission’s views in this regard.

3. A very comprehensive set of legislation is already in place on health rules on import of plants, animal and foodstuffs into the Community, which is in line with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures. Therefore the Commission does not agree with the assumption of the Honourable Member that the possibilities offered by the WTO are not exploited.

At the request of the Commission, food safety will be on the agenda of a special session of the WTO on agriculture, due to meet in July 2001.

4. The Parliament, the Council and the Commission are already engaged in a review of the Community policy on some major animal diseases.

In particular:

 the Council adopted a Directive 2000/75/EC of 20 November 2000 laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of blue tongue (2);

 the Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalo- pathies (3) including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE);

 following the opinion of the Parliament, a new Directive on the control of classical swine fever is at present in the process of adoption by the Council;

 the Council reached a political agreement on a common position on the proposed regulation on animal by-products at its meeting on 19 June 2001;

 the Council has also reached a political agreement on the proposed Food Authority;

 the Commission has already committed itself to a review of the current legislation on foot-and-mouth disease once the current outbreak is eradicated;

 the Commission will submit in the next months to the legislator two proposals on the monitoring and control of zoonoses (Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli, and others).

Through the activities of its Food and Veterinary Office, the Commission is closely involved in evaluating the manner in which animal health legislation is implemented in the Member States. The reports of the Office’s evaluation missions are available on the Directorate general (DG) Health and Consumer Protection website. Future missions to be undertaken by the Office will pay particular attention to the issues raised by the recent disease problems identified in the animal health sector.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final. (2) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000. (3) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1542/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Implementation of alternative and supplementary measures to bring to a rapid end the foot-and- mouth epidemic

1. Is the Commission able to demonstrate the inaccuracy of rumours to the effect that vaccines against foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) which are regarded as illegal have been distributed in other Member States, including France, and are being used to prevent any further spread of the disease? C 364 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

2. Does the Commission consider it possible that the use of illegal vaccines helps to prevent the further spread of foot-and-mouth disease to areas which might otherwise have been affected but that the vaccine is not detected in the course of meat inspections since screening for FMD antibodies is not carried out in non-infected and in areas not considered to be suspect?

3. Can the Commission confirm the information contained in an article in the Dutch newspaper, ‘NRC Handelsblad’ of Thursday, 16 April 2001 to the effect that the United Kingdom is no longer slaughtering healthy cattle in the vicinity of FMD outbreaks and that animals are only being slaughtered after testing for the virus?

4. To what extent and under what conditions are vaccinations now being carried out in the United Kingdom? Do the rules applicable differ from those applicable in the Netherlands? If so why?

5. If a Member State is exempted from the slaughtering requirement or if failure to slaughter is tolerated in practice, how does this affect the obligations of other Member States? In the Commission’s view, does the existence of different obligations in different countries constitute legal inequality?

6. How long will it be before use of a marker vaccine will make it possible for inspectors to distinguish between infected and vaccinated meat?

7. What is the reason for the continued delay regarding preventive vaccination (called for by Parliament in paragraph 2.3. of its resolution of 4 April 2001) of artiodactyls in zoological gardens susceptible to FMD infection and herds of rare animals threatened with extinction whose meat is neither exported or consumed? When can preventive vaccination be carried out on these animals at least?

8. What does the Commission think of the recommendation from the International Office of Epizootics (IOE) in Paris that a distinction be made between ‘FMD-free’ and ‘FMD infection-free’ status so that only infection with a virus and not antibodies from vaccination would constitute a reason to refuse products for import?

9. In this context, what is the role of the ‘Animal Health Code 2000’, which was most recently brought into line with the most up-to-date scientific information in 1997 and was endorsed by all 157 IOE member countries, including all European Union Member States?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

No, it is technically impossible to demonstrate that none of the almost 300 million FMD susceptible animals living in FMD non-infected or non-suspected areas of the Community have been vaccinated.

However, the Commission can state that:

 it is not aware of any factual information concerning any illegal use of FMD vaccine in France or in any other Member State;

 unconfirmed rumours on illegal vaccination cannot be the basis for any action or decision by the Commission;

 it is regrettable that such rumours have been amplified in such a way that they generate distrust and discredit the efforts made by the agricultural sector, the Member States and the Community Institutions to cope with the difficult problems related to the FMD epidemic, without providing any useful contribution to the perfectly legitimate on-going debate on the Community policy on FMD.

The Commission has been informed by the British authorities in the framework of the Standing Veterinary Committee (SVC) that the national guidelines on the preventive slaughtering of suspected cattle in the vicinity of an outbreak have been revised in the light of the evolution of the epidemiological situation. However, these guidelines are not in conflict with Community legislation on the control of FMD. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/141

Commission Decision 2001/257/EC of 30 March 2001 laying down the conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom in application of Article 13 of Directive 85/ 511/EEC (1), as amended by Commission Decision 2001/326/EC of 24 April 2001 (2) establishes the rules under which protective vaccination may be applied in certain areas of the United Kingdom. However, the competent authorities in the United Kingdom have so far decided not to apply vaccination.

Commission Decision 2001/257/EC reflects Commission Decision 2001/279/EC of 5 April 2001 amending Decision 2001/246/EC laying down the conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and- mouth disease in the Netherlands in application of Article 13 of Directive 85/511/EEC (3) on protective vaccination in certain areas of the Netherlands. However, the Commission also adopted Commission Decision 2001/246/EC of 27 March 2001 laying down the conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in the Netherlands in application of Article 13 of Directive 85/511/EEC (4), which establishes the conditions under which suppressive vaccination may be applied in the Netherlands.

Basically, the rules on suppressive vaccination differ from the ones on protective vaccination as in the first instance vaccinated animals must be slaughtered as soon as possible after vaccination. In this way the risk that vaccinated animals spread the disease further is prevented and the measures restricting movements and trade in live animals and their products from the vaccination area may be lifted more quickly.

Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (5) introduces Community measures for the control of FMD and is equally applicable in all Member States. It includes compulsory provisions on slaughtering of FMD infected animals, while other provisions, such as the ones concerning the slaughtering of FMD suspected animals, include elements of flexibility, in order that the Member States may apply the best possible disease control measures, taking into account the local epidemiological situation.

No Member State has been exempted from any requirements on slaughtering of FMD infected animals and the Commission has no factual information that failure to slaughter these animals has been tolerated in any Member State.

Several groups of scientists are currently working on the development of reliable tests able to discriminate between vaccinated animals and infected ones. However, it cannot be predicted when this work will be finalised.

On 11 April 2001, six days after the resolution of the Parliament on FMD, the Commission adopted Commission Decision 2001/303/EC of 11 April 2001 laying down the conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in endangered species in application of Article 13 of Directive 85/ 511/EEC (6), which establishes the conditions under which vaccination might be applied in endangered FMD-susceptible species, such as some species kept in parks or zoos. Since that date vaccination may be applied, but no Member State has so far decided to vaccinate.

The World Organisation for Animal Health’s ‘Office International des Epizooties’ (OIE) is the international organization designated under the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures as responsible for the establishment of international animal health rules and guidelines for trade in animals and animal products. These rules are published in the International Animal Health Code, which is reviewed annually.

On 30 May 2001 the General Assembly of the OIE approved Resolution No XIV, concerning certain amendments to the Chapter on FMD of the above Code. However, these modifications do not concern the international trade in vaccinated animals or their products, but the requirements to demonstrate freedom from FMD, as the OIE has not issued any recommendation or resolution such as the one indicated by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 91, 31.3.2001. (2) OJ L 115, 25.4.2001. (3) OJ L 96, 6.4.2001. (4) OJ L 88, 28.3.2001. (5) OJ L 315, 26.11.1985. (6) OJ L 104, 13.4.2001. C 364 E/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1543/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Financial measures to limit the transport of livestock and meat and ensure that subsidies do not result in spurious trading

1. Does it happen that traders who receive subsidies for exporting calves outside the territory of the EU subsequently reimport and then re-export the same calves in order to obtain the subsidies again after which the calves themselves are simply dumped?

2. Can the Commission confirm that the abolition of an independent meat inspectorate and cutbacks in the sterilisation of animal meal by superheating contributed to the spread of BSE in the United Kingdom?

3. What obstacles now exist to the provision of increased stable room for livestock and more storage space for meat as a means of helping to ensure that animals which are temporarily infected with a disease are given time to recover or that meat intended for consumption can be properly stored, as opposed to opting for immediate destruction?

4. Does the Commission have any information regarding the relationship between, on the one hand, interest rate subsidies, tax arrangements, financial incentives, support price guarantees, energy subsidies and environmental subsidies to benefit trade and producers and, on the other hand, the cost of epidemics to society as a whole? What was the cost-benefit situation each year from 1995 to 2000?

5. Is the Commission prepared to assist in the development and promotion of a duration index system for the agricultural sector, awarding tax bonuses which are proportionately greater for products which have travelled less, thereby discouraging shuttle trading in livestock and meat?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

1. There are no export subsidies for exports of calves. Export refunds are granted for exports of pure- bred breeding animals and cattle for slaughter. The conditions for the granting of such aid make it possible to assess the genuineness of export operations. The Commission does not have any evidence to suggest that fraud of this nature has taken place.

2. The Commission has not carried out any investigation into a link between the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the organisation of the British meat inspectorate. Neither has it enquired into a connection with specific changes which might have taken place in British animal waste rendering standards; however it is now accepted that the principal means of spread has been through the feeding of infective meat and bone meal.

3. In case of the occurrence of certain rapidly spreading animal diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease and classical swine fever, Community legislation provides for a number of control measures, including: i) slaughtering and destruction of animals on infected farms; ii) restrictions of movements of animals from the neighbouring farms or other disease-suspected farms, as these animals may be incubating the disease.

However, if certain conditions are met, animals may be moved from the farms under restriction to slaughterhouses. In general, their meat cannot be traded normally, as it comes from animals of uncertain health status, and must undergo certain treatments ensuring the destruction of the relevant disease agent, if any. Increasing space for the storage of this meat would probably not be of any advantage, as prolonged storage in itself does not offer sufficient health guarantees.

Increasing space on farms may be helpful to reduce animal welfare problems, which in particular may occur on pig farms under restriction. In the light of the Commission proposal for a Council Directive 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/143

amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (1), following the opinion of the Parliament, the Council has recently amended the minimum standards on protection of pigs laid down in Council Directive 91/630/EEC of 19 November 1991 (2). The new Directive will provide for further space for sows and gilts. In any case Member States may adopt more rigorous standards than the ones adopted at Community level, if deemed suitable.

4. The Commission is not aware of any studies on the subject referred to by the Honourable Member. Nor does it have all the information needed for its departments to carry out such a study, as several factors which would have to be taken into account do not fall within its area of responsibility.

5. The Commission is involved in establishing sustainable development indicators for the agricultural sector. On this subject, the Honourable Member is referred in particular to the working document on sustainable development indicators (3) and the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the statistical information needed for indicators to monitor the integration of environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy (4). However, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the introduction of tax bonuses is not at present a Community matter.

(1) OJ C 154 E, 29.5.2001. (2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991. (3) SEC(2001) 266. (4) COM(2001) 144 final.

(2001/C 364 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1548/01 by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Development of yacht marinas in Greece

1. Are there regional development or other EU funds available to help build yacht marinas (including the necessary tourism infrastructure and development) in prime  but, in tourism terms, underdeveloped  sailing locations in Greece?

2. If assistance for such investment were available, what conditions would be attached? What conditions would apply to a German investor?

3. Where can information be obtained and applications made?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The part-financing of pleasure port infrastructure (marinas) can be eligible under the ‘Competitiveness’ operational programme in the Community support framework for Greece for the 2000-2006 program- ming period.

Investment aid is granted under Greek law No 2601/98 (aid scheme), which lays down the procedures and conditions for granting it. Construction of the infrastructure in question is exclusively part-financed as private investment, with the European Regional Development Fund part-financing only a part of the public expenditure provided under this law. Any proposal from private investors may, after evaluation, be taken into consideration for possible part-financing. The selection of individual projects is a matter for the competent national authorities, not the Commission.

In this respect, more detailed information can be obtained from the Managing authority for the Competitiveness operational programme Semitelou Street 6, Athens. C 364 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1549/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: 20 % penalty in respect of tobacco subsidies for 1997 in southern Serrai (Greece)

In July 1998, the Commission imposed a penalty in respect of subsidies for Basma tobacco producers in southern Serrai (Greece) because of delays in the signing and registration of contracts in respect of the 1997 harvest.

This failure to sign and register the contracts which did not apply to all producers was due to the unreliability of certain manufacturing companies and negligence and failure to act on the part of other bodies involved in the process.

Given that this penalty caused major financial losses to tobacco producers in the area concerned, most of whom are small producers who derive their sole source of income is tobacco production and are unable to cultivate other crops, will the Commission re-examine the penalty imposed on the Basma tobacco producers of southern Serrai in 1997, not only to compensate them for loss of income but also to satisfy their sense of justice, since they were in no way responsible for the failure to sign and register contracts with manufacturers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

Articles 2 to 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium system for raw tobacco (1), which applied to the 1997 harvest, lay down the conditions and periods for the signature of contracts between producers and processing firms and for submission of those contracts for registration.

The cultivation contract is an essential element of the premium system under the market organisation for raw tobacco. The deadlines for conclusion and registration of these contracts early enough must be fixed early enough because of the need to ensure from the beginning of the harvest year both a stable outlet for producers for their future harvest and regular supplies to the processing undertakings.

Accordingly, Article 3(3) of the above Regulation lays down these deadlines and prescribes a 20 % reduction in the premium if they are exceeded.

The Commission regrets the financial loss suffered by the producers of Basmas tobacco in Serres in 1997. However, it considers that, if the factors resulting in the reduction of the premium exist, application of the provision in question is fully justified.

(1) OJ L 351, 2.12.1992.

(2001/C 364 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1552/01 by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: French tax provisions for foreign life insurance

French tax provisions for foreign life insurance policies are different from those stemming from French contracts. Hence, one constituent living in France with an English life insurance policy will be expected to pay 17,5 % tax, whereas a French life insurance policy would only incur a rate of 7,5 %. What measures has the Commission taken since the original complaint (No 1999(4835) to rectify the situation? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/145

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Acting on the complaint to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission studied the relevant legislation and asked the French authorities for further information, following which they were sent a letter of formal notice.

The French legislation categorically rules out discharge of withholding tax at the special rate (taux du prélèvement libératoire) where income is derived from investments or policies under Articles 125-0 and Article 125 A of the Code Général des Impôts (CGI) and the person liable is not resident or established in France. The Commission considers this to be incompatible with Articles 49 (ex 59) and 56 (ex 73B) of the EC Treaty.

In the light of the French authorities’ reply to the letter the Commission will shortly decide whether to issue a reasoned opinion under Article 226 (ex 169) of the EC Treaty.

(2001/C 364 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1554/01 by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: A thermal power plant to be built in Tordesillas, Spain

The American multinational ENRON wants to build an 800 megawatt natural gas and diesel oil power plant on the outskirts of Tordesillas which, according to data supplied by the company, will release 2 540 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (the main cause of climate change), 2 100 tonnes of nitrogen oxides, 191 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 545 tonnes of carbon monoxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere every year.

This project is being planned in an Autonomous Region which produces three times more electricity than it consumes. It is therefore obviously already producing a surplus.

The plant would be located only 2 kilometres from Tordesillas, a town with 8 000 inhabitants, and 5 km from the only protected natural area in the province of Valladolid  the Riberas de Castronuño nature reserve  and only a few kilometres from the vineyards producing wine under the registered designation of origin ‘Rueda’.

At Kyoto the EU undertook to reduce CO2 emissions by 8 % compared with 1990 levels. Spain is obliged not to exceed certain emission values by 2010 (1,15 times the 1990 level). If the power plant at Tordesillas is built, according to the figures estimated by the company itself, the annual CO2 emissions would exceed 2,6 million tonnes, a 10 % increase in the total for Castile and Leon, and prevent Spain from meeting the Kyoto objectives.

Does the Commission have an active monitoring system to prevent the Member States from authorising new power plants which would make it impossible to comply with the Kyoto agreements?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is not in a legal position to impose a certain energy supply policy on a Member State. Choice of sources of energy supply falls within the competence of Member States.

In addition the Kyoto Protocol is not yet a legal binding agreement and therefore cannot provide a mandate for any enforcement.

Member States decide how they choose to meet the politically agreed emission reduction targets. Under certain circumstances new power plants may help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This may be for C 364 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

instance the case, when new efficient power plants driven by less Carbondioxide (CO2) intensive fuels (e.g. gas) replace old inefficient power plants driven by coal, which is relatively CO2 intensive (so called fuel switch effect). It should be noted that under community legislation relating to large combustion plants, currently under revision, power plants have to meet emission standards in relation to emissions of e.g. sulphur emissions (SO2), nitrogenoxides (NOX).

In order to establish a continuous surveillance of Community CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions Council Decision 1999/296/EC of 26 April 1999 amending Decision 93/389/EEC for a monitoring 1 mechanism of Community CO2 and other greenhouse emissions ( ), is in force.

This decision obliges the Member States to report their greenhouse gas emissions and their policies and measures annually to the Commission and request the Commission to assess these data and to give annual progress reports presenting the results of this evaluation process, including the actual and projected progress of Member States.

The Commission not only calls for necessary decisions and an efficient implementation of additional policies and measures by Member States that enable the Community to meet the agreed greenhouse gas reduction targets, but started to develop proposals for new common and co-ordinated policies and measures as well.

The European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) has just come forward with its report available under http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/eccp.htm.

This will be followed by a Communication later this year, which will present the concrete proposals for further common and co-ordinated policies and measures against climate change.

(1) OJ L 117, 5.5.1999.

(2001/C 364 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1555/01 by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: A thermal power plant to be built in Tordesillas, Spain

The American multinational ENRON wants to build an 800 megawatt natural gas and diesel oil power plant on the outskirts of Tordesillas which, according to data supplied by the company, will release 2 540 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (the main cause of climate change), 2 100 tonnes of nitrogen oxides, 191 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 545 tonnes of carbon monoxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere every year.

This project is being planned in an Autonomous Region which produces three times more electricity than it consumes. It is therefore obviously already producing a surplus.

The plant would be located only 2 kilometres from Tordesillas, a town with 8 000 inhabitants, and 5 km from the only protected natural area in the province of Valladolid  the Riberas de Castronuno nature reserve  and only a few kilometres from the vineyards producing wine under the registered designation of origin ‘Rueda’.

According to the proposal presented by the company, the volume of water from the river Duero needed to cool the power plant, 0,42 m3/s, will seriously upset the river’s ecosystem, since some years the volume during the low-water period is only 3 m3/s and barely covers its ecological flow. This will inevitably cause serious damage to the wetlands of Riberas de Castronuño, which is classified as a nature reserve. In view of 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/147

its environmental importance, particularly for birds, part of this area has been declared a special bird protection zone, which it is proposed to include in the Natura 2000 network.

Can the Commission ensure that there is a specific environmental impact study taking account of protection and measures to be adopted to safeguard and prevent damage to an ecosystem which is being incorporated in the Natura 2000 network?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. However, it has verified that the area in question is SPA ES4180017  Riberas de Castronuño, which is classified as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) (the Birds Directive). It is also a site of Community importance (SCI ES4180017  Riberas de Castronuño) in accordance with Council Directive 92/43/CEE of 22 May 1992 (2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

It should be mentioned that the Province of Valladolid (Castile-Leon) contains 3 SCIs to be added to the Natura 2000 network in that Province.

The Commission will be contacting the Spanish authorities to ask them to send it the environmental impact statement adopted before the final go-ahead was given for the project.

When the Commission receives a reply, it will be in a position to say whether Community legislation has been complied with in this particular case.

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

(2001/C 364 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1560/01 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Recognition of the Dolomites as part of the World Heritage

Unesco is currently considering the inclusion of the Alps in the World Heritage list.

Can the Commission say whether it intends to give further support to this initiative in view of the fact that the Alpine region covers a number of the Member States and therefore official support by the Commission would in any event be justified?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The Commission would welcome the inclusion of the Alps in the World Heritage List under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco’s) 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Such inclusion would indeed constitute a global recognition of the importance of the Alps as a prime natural resource, which deserves to benefit from the protection and the advantages such inclusion brings about.

As the Community is not a party to the World Heritage Convention, the request to include the Alps would benefit most from appropriate official support by those Member States which are directly affected. C 364 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1562/01 by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Information for project planning and evaluation

The EU funds a wide range of programmes involving the financing of projects in a number of policy areas. Is there a central information resource for companies specialising in project planning and evaluation or is the information dispersed across the range of directorates administering the programmes/projects?

If such a central resource is not available, will the Commission consider setting one up?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Project financing awarded by the Commission is generally done as part of a programme which has its own legal framework and which is managed by an operational Directorate General in charge of the policy area in question. Management or databases for project planning or evaluation are decentralised tasks, where project appraisals are carried out by the responsible Directorates-General. The Commission publishes an annual evaluation report, which is accessible on the europa website (http://europa.eu.int/ comm/budget/evaluation/en.index.htm).

To help organisations that are interested in applying for project financing (grants) from the Commission, the Commission manages a database covering information on all grants awarded by the different departments. This database can also be of use for firms offering services for project planning and evaluation.

As for the question of the Honourable Member regarding plans for putting up a database, the ‘grant management’ web site already provides co-ordinated information to the public on all Commission subsidies (which in most cases take the form of ‘project financing’); as in any similar organisation the planning and appraisal of projects for selection for financing is part of the Commission’s internal management task, sometimes with the help of executive committees, made up of representatives of Member States.

The Official Journal is the main source for firms (or any member of the public) to find about what services the Commission is intending to buy for project planning or evaluation, through calls for tender and calls for expressions of interest. The Commission has also published an open call for expressions of interest for companies that are interested in offering services for evaluation. The list of companies established on this basis can be used by all Commission services. Information concerning this open call is available on the above mentioned web site.

(2001/C 364 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1568/01 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2001)

Subject: Application and amendment of Directives 96/82/EC and 96/61/EC

Investigations into the explosion at the fireworks factory in Enschede on 13 May 2000 led to the conclusion that:  Annex I to Directive 96/82/EC (1) does not make it clear that figure 4 also covers fireworks materials,

 the ‘special risks’ section in Directive 67/548/EEC (2) is not by itself adequate for the assessment of the hazards arising from fireworks materials,  the requirements for the establishment, operation and monitoring of fireworks factories vary from one Member State to another. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/149

1. Will the objective of Directive 96/82/EC be attained if hazardous substances, when used, are also taken into account if they constitute parts of products or substances and/or are such themselves (not only in the case of fireworks materials)?

2. Does the Commission deem it appropriate to change the reference in Annex I to Directive 96/82/EC in such as way that hazardous substances and preparations should also be taken into account if they constitute parts of products or substances and/or are such themselves? If not, why not?

3. Does the Commission see any possibility, when it renews Directive 96/82/EC, of supplementing Annex I to Directive 96/61/EC (3) in such a way that that Directive also applies to factories where explosive substances, preparations and products, etc. are produced, processed, stored or destroyed, so that a document may be drawn up setting out uniform safety, authorisation and inspection requirements for such factories based on best practice technology?

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13. (2) OJ B 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1 (p. 234 of the 1967 Special Edition). (3) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

1. Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (hereafter Seveso II Directive) applies to establishments where explosive substances are present in quantities of 50 or more tonnes, as set out in Annex I, Part 2, No 4 of the Directive. According to Note 2 (a) to Annex I, Part 2, the term ‘explosive’ covers, amongst others, substances or mixtures of substances designated to produce heat, light, sound, gas or smoke or a combination of such effects through non-detonating self-sustained exothermic chemical reactions (pyrotechnic substances) and pyrotechnic substances or preparations contained in objects. Furthermore, Article 3, No 4 defines the term ‘dangerous substance’ as meaning, inter alia, a substance, mixture or preparation present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate.

Therefore, the Commission considers that the Seveso II Directive also covers hazardous substances that constitute parts of products or preparations.

2. As already explained in the answer to the previous question, the Commission considers that the Seveso II Directive already covers hazardous substances that constitute parts of products or preparations. However, in the light of the ‘Enschede accident’, the Seveso II Directive needs to be amended.

Although the company Fireworks SE had an operating licence for 159 tonnes of fireworks, the establishment did not come under the Seveso II Directive. This is due to the fact that the calculation of the qualifying quantities only takes the presence of pyrotechnic substances into account, i.e. not the packaging, etc. In the case of Fireworks SE, these added up to around 48 tonnes, just short of qualifying the establishment as a ‘lower tier’ establishment under the Directive.

Following the accident, the Commission organised two seminars on explosives and pyrotechnic substances that were held at Marseille on 27 September 2000 and at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the Commission at Ispra/Italy on 28/29 March 2001. Summary reports of the seminars can be received from the Major Accident Hazards Bureau (MAHB) established within JRC (http://mahbsrv.jrc.it).

The reports suggest to make use of the classification system operated under the United Nations European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (UN/ADR) for the purposes of defining the scope of the Seveso II Directive and to significantly decrease the qualifying quantities for explosive and pyrotechnic substances with a mass explosion hazard. On the other hand, the reports acknowledge that the classification of explosive and pyrotechnic substances itself is treated differently in different Member States and that imported explosive and pyrotechnic products are often incorrectly classified and labelled. C 364 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The reports, together with comments from the various stakeholders from industry, public authorities and environmental organisations received during a public consultation process on a draft proposal for a Directive amending the Seveso II Directive, will constitute an important input for the Commission services in order to revise the draft proposal. Its adoption by the Commission is scheduled for September 2001.

3. Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996, concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (hereafter IPPC Directive) does cover the production of explosives in so far as it is part of chemical industry, and it can be expected that the ongoing exchange of information on best available techniques for prevention and control of emissions will include the relevant chemical processes. However, a typical installation that produces and/or stores fireworks would not be covered by this Directive.

The Commission has doubts as to the usefulness of covering these activities under the IPPC Directive as reference documents on the best available techniques developed under this directive mainly focus on emission control. Authorisation and inspection issues are not subject of these documents. The Commission believes that the Seveso II Directive is the most appropriate instrument for major-accident hazard control in facilities where explosive and pyrotechnic substances and materials are produced and stored.

(2001/C 364 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1574/01 by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Waste disposal: public health issues and environmental impact

In Italy waste disposal is becoming an ever greater problem. With a view to dealing with potential threats to public health in some regions, thought is being given to transferring waste to neighbouring regions. The Marche region has been asked to take in 30 000 tonnes of waste from Campania.

Even inside Europe toxic waste is being transferred from one country to another, with convoys transporting such waste being allowed to pass through built-up areas. Permission is being granted to bury huge quantities of all types of waste with no proper assessment being made of the damage this may cause to groundwater tables and public health. The preliminary checks carried out are inadequate and the disinfection measures used for foot-and-mouth cases were not subjected to any form of coordination in the various EU Member States.

Things have reached such a pitch that this situation is seriously endangering both public health and the environment.

Given the above, does the Commission intend to:

1. step up awareness-raising action and exchanges of good practice with a view to contributing towards real improvements on the waste front, rather than restricting itself to producing legislation which is ineffectual;

2. encourage the sorting of waste and support research and the waste-recycling industry with a view to ensuring that waste is converted into raw materials or alternative energy sources;

3. lay down penalties for those who, by refusing to take practical steps to solve the problem and passing on responsibility to others or by speculating on the sale of certain types of toxic waste, contribute to the development of an ‘ecomafia’, and punish those who, in order to qualify for aid, transfer hazardous materials from one country to another, thus endangering public health and causing environmental damage? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/151

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Community waste legislation provides Member States with a framework of powers and obligations designed to facilitate the achievement of effective environmental protection. Under Council Directive 75/ 442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), Member States have the obligation to ensure that waste is disposed of or recovered without endangering human health and without harming the environment. The Directive further obliges Member States to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations and to ensure that waste operators are appropriately licensed and registered. In order to meet the requirements and objectives set out in the Directive, Member States must draw up waste management plans relating in particular to the type, quantity and origin of waste, general technical requirements, any special arrangements for particular wastes and suitable disposal sites or installations. Shipments of hazardous waste are subject to stringent control procedures as laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 93/259/EEC of 1 February 1993, on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (2). In particular, Member States have powers under the Regulation to exercise controls over the export and import of waste within the Community where it is destined for a disposal operation.

Separate collection is required at present for waste oils according to Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (3), for packaging waste to the extent that the targets of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994, on packaging and packaging waste (4) are to be achieved and for batteries covered by Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991, on batteries and accumulators (5). Separate collection is also one of the objectives of the Commission proposal for waste from electrical and electronic equipment. In addition, subject to compliance with internal market rules, Member States may use economic instruments such as fiscal measures and deposit schemes in order to encourage separate collection.

Apart from proposing legislative measures, the Commission has taken several other steps to raise awareness and exchanges of good practice. In the framework of the LIFE Programme, innovative projects for the improvement of separate collection and recycling of waste can be funded. Several specific workshops to exchange information on best practices were organised, including a workshop in Sorrento in 1996, focused mostly on the situation in Campania. The Commission published a manual on good practices in the field of separate collection and composting (6), destined especially for the south of Europe, where composting has very high potential. In this context, a very useful manual has also been produced by the Italian National Agency for the Protection of the Environment (7).

Community environmental legislation establishes the specific legal obligations which Member States must ensure are complied with within their respective jurisdictions. Community legislation therefore provides Member States with the necessary framework in order to deal with the problem of illegal treatment of waste. It is, however, the responsibility and duty of Member States to ensure that, not only are Community directives on environmental protection properly transposed into national law, but also that effective sanctions are in place in order to deter and combat illicit treatment of waste and that they are duly monitored and enforced in practice. For its part, the Commission continues to monitor the application of Community law and has brought numerous infringement actions against Member States for the non- transposition and incorrect application of Community waste legislation (8).

The Sixth Environment Action Programme of the European Community ‘Environment 2010: our future, our choice’ for 2001-2010 (9) specifically states that ‘environmental crime […] needs to be tackled vigorously’ (10).

On 13 March 2001, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law (11), as part of its activities under the first pillar of the Treaty. This should ensure more effective application of Community environmental law, by establishing a minimum set of criminal offences throughout the Community. In particular, the proposal includes provisions concerning the treatment and disposal of waste. C 364 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The Commission is now putting together the most reliable information available on the existence and extent of organised environmental crime. As part of police and judicial cooperation (Title VI of the EU Treaty) it will encourage the Member States to back up the proposal for a Directive with appropriate measures, in particular to set minimum penalties applicable in all the Member States and to provide for the extradition of eco-criminals from one Member State to another.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975 as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (OJ L 78, 26.3.1991) and Commission Decision 96/ 350/EEC (OJ L 135, 6.6.1996). (2) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993. (3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. (4) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. (5) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. (6) Commissione europea, Esempi di successo sul compostaggio e la raccolta differenziata, 2000 (http:// www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/compost/index_it.htm). (7) ANPA: La raccolta differenziata, aspetti progettuali e gestionali, 1999. (8) See, for example, the recent judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-365/97 Commission v. Italy (San Rocco) of 9.11.99 concerning Italy’s breach of Directive 75/442/EEC with respect to the San Rocco River bed. (9) COM(2000) 31 final. (10) See p. 12 of the Sixth programme. (11) COM(2001) 139 final.

(2001/C 364 E/166) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1575/01 by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Renovation of the Berlaymont Building

According to recent editions of Belgian newspapers (for example ‘De Standaard’ of 23/24 April 2001), Mr Daems, Belgian Minister for Public Works, has decided to instruct Tractebel to support Berlaymont 2000, to the tune of BEF 1 billion, so that the renovation of the Berlaymont Building may be put back on track. The press reports and the statement made in the Belgian Senate lead us to believe that this cost overrun is a result of mismanagement by Berlaymont 2000.

Is the amount involved to be added to the renovation costs, and will the Commission have to pay it?

In other words, will the European taxpayer have to foot the bill for the professional shortcomings of Berlaymont 2000?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

The Commission has given no undertakings relating to the renovation costs of the Berlaymont building. The Commission has made it clear to the Belgian authorities and to S.A. Berlaymont 2000 that it will not bear any direct or indirect cost due to mismanagement, including extra costs due to delays.

Negotiations with the relevant Belgian authorities are continuing, with the purpose of reaching an agreement on a contract defining the precise rights and obligations of all of the parties involved. Following existing procedures, and before signing takes place, this contract will be submitted for approval to the Budgetary Authority.

For purposes of general information the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the answer to Written Question E-936/01 submitted by Mr Sjöstedt (1).

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 155. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/153

(2001/C 364 E/167) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1578/01 by Linda McAvan (PSE) to the Commission (21 May 2001)

Subject: Fifth framework projects in the Yorkshire and Humberside region

Can the Commission please provide a breakdown of the regional distribution and the level of funding of Fifth framework projects in the Yorkshire and Humberside region of the United Kingdom? Does the Commission prioritise assisted areas (Objective 1 and 2) when allocating funding for research programmes?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission (28 June 2001)

Data on funding of the Fifth framework Research and Technological Development (RTD) programme projects in the Yorkshire and Humberside regions will be sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat.

The Fifth framework (RTD) Programme is implemented through competitive calls for proposals addressed to the academic and industrial research community, published widely and open to participation from all regions of Europe, including in the Member States associated to the programme. Potential research actors are encouraged to come together in transnational cooperation consortia, in submitting proposals. These proposals are evaluated, on the basis of clearly established selection criteria, by independent experts. The focus is on the inherent qualities of the proposal without any consideration to the geographical region in which one or other of the participants is placed.

(2001/C 364 E/168) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1581/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission (21 May 2001)

Subject: Recent events in Angola

The offensive launched last week-end by rebel forces near Luanda left approximately a hundred dead and a further hundred missing. In addition, 60 children were kidnapped by an armed group belonging to the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) in an operation, which according to eye- witnesses, was both targeted and well-planned. The group of kidnapped children consisted of 51 boys and nine girls between the ages of 10 and 18. As if the murder of four members of humanitarian organisations unconnected with the conflict in the region of Luanda was not enough, children are once again falling victim to abuses in the areas dogged by conflict. Once kidnapped, children usually end up being subjected to sexual abuse or being used as human shields or pawns in the conflict.

Has the Commission condemned these events which constitute a flagrant violation of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and in particular of its optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict? To what extent is the protection of minors in areas of conflict taken account of in the European Union’s cooperation with third world countries? What extraordinary measures does the Commission think could be adopted in order to help the child population which is particularly vulnerable and defenceless against guerrilla attacks of this nature?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (29 June 2001)

The Union has issued a declaration strongly condemning the attack by UNITA near the town of Caxito in Angola, which resulted in the abduction of 60 children from a school supported by a European non- governmental organisation (NGO). Through this declaration of the Presidency, the Union called for the immediate release and safe return of all abducted children and insisted that the perpetuators should be brought to justice. C 364 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

As regards the assistance and protection of children affected by armed conflict in general, the Commission has made children a priority in humanitarian assistance. Since the beginning of 2000, the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) has spent more than € 40 million on projects targeting the special needs of children. Typical projects include: projects for the demobilisation, rehabilitation and reintegration of child soldiers, health and nutrition projects, psychosocial support for war-affected children, family tracing and reunification, and emergency education. Such projects contribute to help the children against guerrilla attacks. In Angola, a number of projects targeting the special needs of children have also been implemented in co-operation with partners such as Médecins sans frontières  Belgium (MSF-B), Concern Ireland, United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef), Cooperation, Interchange and Culture (CIC) Portugal, and Caritas Italy.

(2001/C 364 E/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1584/01 by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Bathing water in France

Could the Commission please inform me about the different quality of statistics reported to it by different countries in the ‘Blue Flag’ scheme for beaches, particularly with reference to the resort of St George de Didonne in the Poitou-Charentes region of France.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

It is important to note that the Blue Flag campaign is not a Commission scheme. It is the Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe (FEEE), based in Copenhagen, that is solely responsible for this campaign. This Foundation has associated organisations in the Member States who assess the beaches, which are candidates for a Blue Flag. This assessment is made for four major issues, for which both imperative and guideline criteria are established: environmental education and information, environmental management, water quality and safety and services. The Commission is only connected to the Blue Flag because the water quality criteria for a Blue Flag beach are based on the guideline values of the European Bathing Water Directive, Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (1). Any request about the attribution of Blue Flags should be addressed to FEEE (2).

Regarding the information about a particular bathing area in France, the Commission must record with regret that for the second successive year and due to industrial action by the staff responsible for submitting the data to central government, France has not communicated any results to the Commission. The Commission has been assured though, that measures to monitor bathing water quality and to protect bather’s health were taken throughout the 2000 bathing season and that that information has been made available to the public at the concerned bathing areas and/or the local town/city hall.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976. (2) FEEE, for the attention of Finn Bolding Tomson, Scandiagade 13; DK-2450 Kobenhavn, fax +45-33-790179.

(2001/C 364 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1589/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Causes of the increased incidence of tumours

The annual Tumour Register meeting held in Alghero (in the province of Sassari) revealed an increase of approximately 0,5 % in the incidence of tumours worldwide. This increase is cause for concern and raises 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/155

questions about the possible causes. It suggests the hypothesis that leukaemia and lymphomas may be linked to various forms of pollution, possibly including electromagnetic pollution.

In the light of this, can the Commission say:

1. whether it already knows about this;

2. whether any studies and research are being carried out in Europe to ascertain the increase and the possible links with electromagnetic pollution, in order to prevent the situation from deteriorating further and, if so, whether it can communicate the results?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Honourable Member expresses concern about the slight increase of the global cancer incidence reported on the instance of an annual meeting of a regional Tumor Registry in Alghero, Italy. These figures most likely derive from the World health organisation (WHO)/IARC Globocan/Cancer in five Continents database, of which the European figures are provided for by the European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR) with the support of the Europe against Cancer Programme.

The Commission’s support to the ENCR, to the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), and to a multitude of research institutions funded under the Research Programmes, aims at narrowing down the causes of cancer to finally prevent cancer, or to improve survival and the quality of life of cancer stricken Europeans through an improvement of early diagnosis and treatment.

In addition, numerous scientific studies into the health effects of electromagnetic fields are under way as part of the Fifth framework programme for research and technological development (Quality of Life Programme, Key Action 4: Environment and Health), which is funding 5 projects for a total of approximately € 9 million. These projects, essentially looking into carcinogenic risks potentially associated with radiofrequencies, were launched at the start of 2000 and will bear fruit over the next 4 years. To augment these studies, other calls for proposals published within the same framework will explore possible biological health effects such as headaches or disturbed sleep patterns.

In parallel, the Commission has recently asked its Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment to deliver an update of its previous opinion published in June 1998 on health risks associated with electromagnetic fields regarding new technological developments and conditions of exposure. This will be published during the autumn of 2001 and used, if necessary, to elaborate new Community legislative proposals in the field.

The Commission will react to any new scientific evidence regarding health risks not already taken into consideration.

(2001/C 364 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1597/01 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: European Commission answer to Written Question E-0194/01 concerning the ‘Iron Rhine’ railway line

On 19 April 2001, the European Commission answered Written Question E-0194/01 (1) concerning the resumption of international rail freight transport on the historic ‘Iron Rhine’ route. C 364 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

That answer prompts the following additional questions:

1. Does the European Commission share the view of the Netherlands Government that the section of the ‘Iron Rhine’ railway line located on Netherlands territory falls within the scope of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) and of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (3)?

2. What is the Commission’s view of the applicability of Directives 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC to the German section of the ‘Iron Rhine’ railway line?

3. Does the European Commission share the view that, if such an extensive long-distance freight transport route is reopened, the German section of the route also requires an environmental impact assessment in accordance with the relevant European Union law?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 60. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

The section of the ‘Iron Rhine’ railway line located on Netherlands territory partly falls within the scope of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) and Directive 92/43/EEC (2), since it may affect the ‘Meinweg’ and the ‘Weerter en Budelerbergen’. Those areas have been designated as special protection areas in accordance with Directive 79/409/EEC and the Netherlands has also proposed them as sites of Community importance in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-496/01 by Mr de Roo (3).

As the Commission noted in the above-mentioned reply, the reopening of the ‘Iron Rhine’ is currently under consideration, but no decision has been taken yet. In the absence of information about the concrete characteristics of this project, the Commission is not in a position to determine whether or not in its view Germany will be under an obligation to conduct an impact assessment under Council Directive 85/337/ EEC (4), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (5). For further information on the legal background in this context, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-496/ 01.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. (2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. (3) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 67. (4) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985). (5) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ L 73, 14.3.1997).

(2001/C 364 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1600/01 by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Court of Justice open competition  discrimination on the ground of age

In recent years, provisions governing human rights protection have been incorporated into various sections of the treaties. Long before that, respect for human rights constituted a fundamental principle of European Community law. Article 6 of the EU Treaty includes a general reference to the protection of human rights, whilst Articles 12 and 13 of the EC Treaty refer specifically to the prohibition of discrimination. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/157

Given the above, I was deeply shocked by a letter which I recently received from a Mrs Vermijs, writing from Breda in the Netherlands, a copy of which I have also forwarded to Commissioner Bolkestein. In a Dutch newspaper, she saw a notice of open competition for the recruitment of lawyer-linguists at the European Court of Justice and decided to apply.

She fulfilled every requirement for participation bar one. The notice clearly stated that persons aged 40 and over could not apply.

To say the least, I find it amazing that an EU institution which, long before human rights appeared on the EU’s political agenda or in the treaties, handed down judgments on the basis of which human rights were declared to be fundamental principles of European law (1), is itself now laying down requirements in its recruitment procedure which result in a direct violation thereof, namely discrimination (on the ground of age).

Can the European Commission, as guardian of the treaties, tolerate the breach by an EU institution of a fundamental principle of European law, namely the prohibition of discrimination?

If the European Commission deems such discrimination on the ground of age to be admissible, can it indicate the basis for that admissibility criterion?

If the European Commission deems such discrimination on the ground of age to be inadmissible, and if that criterion is found to be in breach of European law, will the European Commission immediately admit Mrs Vermijs to the open competition or impose other compensatory measures on the competent authorities?

(1) See, for example, the Ruteli Case, 36/75[1975].

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the provisions of Council Directive 2000/78/CE of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment, employment and occupation (1). This Directive falls within the framework of the initiatives proposed by the Commission on 25 November 1999 with a view to exercising the new powers conferred on the Community under Article 13 of the EC Treaty.

The Directive does establish a general principle of prohibition of any direct or indirect discrimination based, inter alia, on age. However, Article 6 allows for differences of treatment on grounds of age where they are objectively and reasonably justified. For instance, the Directive justifies the fixing of a maximum age for recruitment which is based on the training requirements of the post in question or the need for a reasonable period of employment before retirement as one of the examples of differences of treatment on grounds of age (Article 6.1.c).

Taking full account of these legal provisions, the Commission does not therefore consider age limits for recruitment to European Institutions to be incompatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty.

The specific case referred to by the Honourable Member concerns an open competition organised by the Court of Justice. Since each European Institution is responsible for the organisation of its own open competitions as well as for setting the specific requirements for participation in its competitions, the Commission considers that questions on this specific case are more appropriately addressed to the Court of Justice.

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, in accordance with actions 27, 29 and 50 of the White Paper on Reforming the Commission (2) of 1 March 2000, the Commission has proposed closer inter-Institutional co-operation on recruitment. The establishment of an inter-Institutional selection office and the question of age limits for recruitment by open competitions are issues that are currently being discussed within the framework of inter-Institutional negotiations.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16. (2) COM(2000) 200 final. C 364 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1602/01 by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Commission Decision of 29 June 2000

Recital 9 of Commission Decision 2000/418/EC (1) of 29 June 2000 regulating the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) and amending Decision 94/ 474/EC (2) prohibits the stunning of animals by gas injection and the production of brain death by the laceration of central nervous tissue (’pithing’) in view of the contagious nature of BSE.

Council Directive 93/119/EC (3) of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing defines the term ‘stunning’ as follows: ‘any process which, when applied to an animal, causes immediate loss of consciousness which lasts until death’.

Would the Commission clarify the following points:

1. In practice, Council Directive 93/119/EC is often implemented in an unsatisfactory manner. For example, the bolt apparatus generally used to stun animals is often not adequately maintained or not used properly, with the result that its effect is not strong enough to stun the animal before slaughter as required by the directive. This deplorable fact was, however, masked up to 1 January 2001 by the practice of ‘pithing’. The Commission’s Decision of 29 June 2000 has brought it into the open (see http://www.tierschutz.cc on conditions in Austrian abattoirs). How will the Commission ensure that application of the decision does not lead to infringement of the directive? Are any additional controls planned? What provision has been made for accompanying measures?

2. Is the Commission aware of instances in the other Member States in which animals have been slaughtered without having been stunned in accordance with the provisions of the Directive?

3. Is the Commission supporting any research into acceptable methods of stunning animals?

(1) OJ L 158, 30.6.2000, p. 76. (2) OJ L 194, 29.7.1994, p. 96. (3) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The purpose of pithing was to stop post-stunning convulsions in the animal concerned and it was used in order to ensure the safety of the operator. Pithing ensured that no animal would recover from the effect of the captive bolt. However the use of pithing was limited particularly because of fears over dissemination of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agents and also because of improved stunning techniques.

The Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission (FVO) carries out regular inspections of slaughter- houses in the Member States. These inspections include checking that stunning procedures are applied in compliance 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.

From the recent inspections carried out by the FVO, there was evidence of problems concerning stunning practices in two Member States. At present one Member State is the object of an infringement procedure in relation to its failure to enforce some provisions of Directive 93/119/EC. However the deficiencies related to stunning were observed before Commission Decision 2000/418/EC of 29 June 2000 regulating the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Decision 94/474/EC entered into force.

The Commission does not presently provide financial support for any particular research project on acceptable methods of stunning. The Scientific Steering Committee is currently addressing the question of penetrative stunning methods. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/159

(2001/C 364 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1608/01 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Effects of Mr Berlusconi’s election programme on the stability of the euro area

Last Sunday’s elections in Italy seem to have resulted in a win for the centre-right Forza Italia party. The election programme of the chairman of the party and possible future prime minister, Mr Silvio Berlusconi, MEP, included promises of significant tax cuts and increased public investment. Unfortunately, it was not made clear how these promises would be financed.

1. Does the Commission propose to take any measures if this expansionist economic policy is implemented in Italy at a time when the inflationary pressure on the euro area is still high?

2. Is the Commission considering initiating the same type of procedure as in the case of Ireland? In other words will it give a warning to Italy too, if Italy’s taxation and public spending solutions are in conflict with the country’s growth and stability package and have a harmful impact on the stability of the euro area as a whole? Or are such warnings only given to the small countries in the euro area?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

The Commission actively monitors economic and budgetary developments in all Member States. Member States’ policies are assessed on the basis of government policy objectives and of their implementation.

Based on the Italian government’s budgetary strategy and its implementation, the Ecofin Council has recently formulated a set of Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, which recommend that the Italian government achieve its fiscal policy targets. Electoral programmes do not count as government policy.

The recommendation issued by the Ecofin Council to Ireland was based on the inconsistency of the Irish government’s budgetary plans with the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines for 2000.

The Commission will continue to monitor budgetary developments in Italy, including for consistency with the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines for 2001.

(2001/C 364 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1616/01 by James Provan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Cost of refurbishment of the Berlaymont building

Will the Commission indicate the cost of renovation of the Berlaymont, the original budgeted estimate, the expected date of completion, and the added costs of relocation of staff from the old building and to the renovated one?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

The latest estimate provided by S.A. Berlaymont 2000 of the cost of renovation of the Berlaymont building as at 31 March 2001 was BEF 15,714 million (€ 390 million). However, this will probably not be the final C 364 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

figure since no completion date is currently available because of delays resulting from legal disputes about the management of the site by S.A. Berlaymont 2000. The original budget estimate made in July 1997 was BEF 13,073 million (€ 324 million).

The added cost of relocation of staff from the old building to the renovated building is not easy to quantify with precision because many moves from, or into, a building necessitate a number of complementary moves in or to other buildings. In 1991, when the Commission left the Berlaymont, about 3 000 people moved to substitution buildings, triggering roughly 6 000 complementary moves. It is likely that the reoccupation of the building would necessitate a similar number of moves. In 2001 the average per capita cost of a move, including furniture and informatics, ranges between € 100 and € 300 per person depending on the technical conditions and complexity of the works to be carried out. These relocation expenses constitute part of the global building and informatics expenditure foreseen in the Commission budget under Titles A-1 and A-5.

In this context, it is important to note that when the Commission vacated the Berlaymont in 1991, it was agreed that it would continue to pay rent for the building and that the Belgian state would in return cover the much higher rental cost of those buildings which the Commission has been obliged to use as temporary substitutes for the Berlaymont. In 2001, the Commission pays a rent of € 14 140 135 for the Berlaymont whilst the Belgian State pays € 32 382,92 for the substitution buildings. This arrangement will continue until reoccupation of the Berlaymont is satisfactorily completed.

For further information, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Questions E-936/01 by Mr Sjöstedt (1) and E-1575/01 by Mrs van der Laan (2).

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 155. (2) See p. 152.

(2001/C 364 E/176) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1617/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Aid for construction of plants for the separation and treatment of light packaging

The Association of Local Authorities of the Western Costa del Sol, in Malaga province (Spain), has entered into an agreement with an enterprise in the sector for the selective collection of light packaging (plastics, cartons, cans) and for the construction and operation of a plant for the separation of such packaging in the association’s member municipalities.

The aim is to meet the deadlines laid down by the EU directives for introducing selective waste collection.

Can the Commission state on what basis bodies such as this association can benefit from Council aid for the construction, maintenance and operation of plants of this nature?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that Member States have a certain amount of discretion in implementing their obligation under Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994, on packaging and packaging waste (1). In particular this applies in respect of the Member States’ obligation to meet the recovery targets in Article 6 and the establishment of return, collection and recovery systems under Article 7 of the Directive. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/161

Concerning Community aid to waste treatment plants in Member States, it can be stated that no special programme to finance or co-finance waste treatment facilities exists. However, different options to improve the state of the environment are available within the framework of the structural and cohesion funds. Member States are at liberty to submit proposals for such projects. In addition, funds for implementing innovative approaches to tackle environmental problems are available under the LIFE programme. All funding offers from the Directorate general (DG) Environment are listed on the website  www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/funding/intro_en.htm.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2001/C 364 E/177) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1619/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 June 2001)

Subject: Candidacy of Malaga for the seat of the EU’s future Maritime Safety Agency

Malaga has submitted its candidacy for the seat of the EU’s Maritime Safety Agency. Among the factors supporting this candidacy are the location of the Sea of Alborán on one of the world’s busiest maritime routes and the fact that the Straits of Gibraltar are crossed by between 70 000 and 80 000 vessels every year.

While other cities will also apply, Malaga’s candidacy would ensure a Mediterranean location for the agency which could be the salvation of an ocean that has suffered severe damage from a level of maritime traffic in excess of its ecological capacities.

Does the Commission believe that objective criteria should be established for choosing among the cities put forward for the Agency’s seat, to include compliance with the existing on-board safety rules, levels of risk insurance provision, and coordination management in respect of the provisions of national law in the field?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (2 August 2001)

The Commission proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency was presented on 6 December 2000 in the context of a second package of measures following the ‘Erika’ accident (1).

Since the presentation of this proposal, the Commission has indeed received a number of applications by Member States or regional authorities, among which is an application by the city of Malaga.

The Commission would agree with the Honourable Member that certain objective criteria have to be taken into account by the competent Authority when deciding on the location of the Agency.

(1) COM(2000) 802 final.

(2001/C 364 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1623/01 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 June 2001)

Subject: Recognition as medical treatment centres of mineshafts used for therapeutic purposes

In Germany and Austria, as well as in several applicant countries (such as Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary), mineshafts used for therapeutic purposes are recognised, for example, as medical treatment centres. Accordingly, sickness insurance schemes bear the cost of the treatment which they offer. C 364 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Can the European Commission indicate:

 what it thinks of mineshafts used for therapeutic purposes as medical treatment centres;

 whether the operation of such therapeutic centres will, in future, also receive increased financial aid from the European Union through Community programmes and be encouraged?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The competences of the Community in the health field are limited. The recognition of the use of mineshafts for medical treatment and the decisions of health insurance whether to reimburse treatment costs in this area form part of the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and financing of health systems (Article 152 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty).

The new public health programme which is currently being discussed by the Parliament and the Council contains actions pertaining to the exchange of best practice and on the cost effectiveness of specific health interventions. It could therefore provide a framework to discuss the costs and benefits of treatments and procedures, while of course the final decision on their use and application remains with Member States.

Moreover, research into the effectiveness of these therapies could be undertaken within the Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources programme in the context of the Fifth Reasearch and Technological Development framework programme.

(2001/C 364 E/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1626/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Standardisation and promotion of olive oil

Can the Commission say what use Greece has made of Community aid for the standardisation of olive oil to date and what percentage this amounts to by comparison with other olive-oil producing countries?

Can the Commission also provide estimates relating to the use of Community funds for the standardisation and promotion of olive oil under the regional operational programmes 2000-2006 in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Commission has not part-financed any action to standardise olive oil in connection with the structural measures. Under the new programming for 2000-06, however, proposals involving investments in the standardisation of olive oil cannot be ruled out. At this stage in programming, it is still too early for precise details or figures concerning the financing of such investments. That information will only be available once the calls for proposals are published and potential investors’ proposals are received and approved by the body responsible for managing the rural development operational programme covering the processing and marketing of agricultural products. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/163

(2001/C 364 E/180) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1629/01 by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: EU funding for research involving primates

It is reported that the Biomedical Primate Research Centre in Rijswijk (Netherlands) is receiving grants from the EU budget.

1. Can the Commission state how much money is involved and what experiments are being carried out?

2. How does the Commission justify expenditure on this type of research to those who are fundamentally opposed to the use of primates in medical research?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

In the Fifth framework programme for Research and Technological Development (RTD), the Commission has so far funded the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) to a total amount of approximately € 4,3 million. The funding encompasses several three-year research projects started in 1999 and 2000. They cover research areas, such as vaccine and drug development for human immunodeficiency syndrom (HIV), tuberculosis, malaria and hepatitis C.

The Commission has been most vigilant as regards animal experiments and animal welfare in implementing the Fifth framework programme for RTD.

In the Annex of the Decision of the Council (1), concerning the Quality of Life Programme, it is specified that funding of research involving animals is restricted under this programme with regard to animal experiments and tests on animals, which should, whenever possible, be replaced with in vitro or other alternative methods. An obligation is placed on all applicants for proposals to describe the procedures adopted to respect the principles of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) and to protect the welfare of animals.

In addition, research on the development of alternatives to animal experiments and animal welfare is supported under this programme.

An independent ethical review has been implemented systematically under the Quality of Life Programme for proposals dealing with sensitive issues such as the use of non-human primates. The ethical review panel includes, among others, representatives of animal welfare groups. The ethical review ensures that all research involving animals is conducted in accordance with Directive 86/609/CEE. It takes account of the overall benefit of the research proposed in relation to the possible costs in terms of animal suffering. Furthermore, participants in research projects must fulfil all national legal and ethical requirements. Funding of the project will not be granted before all ethical questions have been answered satisfactorily.

The BPRC, which is situated in the Community but independent of the Community, has engaged itself contractually to fulfil all national legal and ethical requirements.

(1) 1999/167/EC: Council Decision of 25 January 1999 adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on quality of life and management of living resources (1998 to 2002), (OJ L 64, 12.3.1999). C 364 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/181) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1633/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (12 June 2001)

Subject: Patient information on medicines

Given that patients have access to a wide range of medicinal and health information via various sources, and specifically the internet, and given the importance of an informed patient, does the Commission have any plans to review and assess the role and value of patient information? Furthermore, does the Commission have any plans to introduce any new initiatives or pilot schemes that will allow the pharmaceutical industry to provide patients directly with greater access to information on medicines?

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce any amendments to existing advertising and/or medicines directives so as to provide patients with greater access to information?

With the expansion of the internet and the increasing popularity of health-related websites offering information and advice, does the Commission have any plans to review and assess the role and value of patient information from all sources?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (18 September 2001)

With the spread of the new information technologies, the public has access to a much wider range of information which it is very difficult to monitor. In the case of medicines, and public health in the broader sense, there is strong demand from certain patients who should, therefore, be able to have access to good- quality information.

Article 3 of Council Directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use (1) lays down that advertising to the general public is prohibited for medicinal products which are available on medical prescription only.

On 19 July last, the Commission adopted a proposal to amend the aforementioned Directive and transmitted it to Parliament and the Council for adoption.

As part of the ongoing pharmaceutical review, for instance, the Commission proposes that the possibilities of disseminating information for patients on prescription-only medicinal products should be extended in order to meet the patients’ legitimate needs. Patient information on some of these products would be possible in a precisely determined and strictly monitored framework. This would involve certain medicinal products intended for the treatment of conditions such as Aids, diabetes or broncho-pulmonary illnesses. The choice of conditions depends on various criteria such as patient demand, the role of health professionals in the pathology, the chronic nature of the illness and the characteristics of the target populations. This type of information would be limited to principles of good practice adopted by the Commission in liaison with the competent authorities of the Member States and would depend on the establishment, at Member State level, of procedures for self-regulation by the pharmaceutical industry. It is also proposed that the Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products be entrusted with monitoring the application of good practice and with coordinating the monitoring of this type of information. There will naturally be an evaluation after an establishment phase of five years in order to determine the follow-up to this trial and propose any changes which might be necessary with a view to improving its application.

(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.

(2001/C 364 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1635/01 by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission (12 June 2001)

Subject: Property purchases in Majorca

Recent studies by the University of the Balearic Islands estimate that in the island of Majorca over 15 % of the land now belongs to German citizens. In the Serra de Tramuntana in the north of the island this 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/165

percentage is as high as 25 %, and in some municipalities German citizens already own over half the land. The German consulate in Majorca estimates that 90 000 Germans possess property in the island.

Meanwhile, the price of housing in the Balearic Islands has gone up by 26,6 % in the last year alone. The Balearic Islands are the region of Spain where house prices have risen the most.

The Commission has recently recognised that property purchases are a ‘politically highly sensitive subject’ in most of the countries which are candidates for EU membership. and has proposed restricting the purchase of secondary residences during a five-year period.

At one point the EU Treaty included a Protocol No 1 under which Denmark was allowed to keep its existing legislation on purchases of property other than the houses of permanent residents.

In view of these precedents admitted by the EU institutions, and given the exceptional circumstances existing in the Balearic Islands as far as property purchases are concerned, can the Commission state whether it is aware of this situation? Does it intend to take any kind of measures to tackle this problem affecting the Balearic Islands? Why is it felt that protection in this field is owed to certain parts of Europe when a region like the Balearic Islands suffers from similar problems and yet remains unprotected?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The movement of capital is a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the provisions in Articles 56-60 (ex Articles 73b-73g) of the EC Treaty. Article 56 restates the principle of full liberalisation of capital movements between Member States as already introduced in Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the EC Treaty (1).

The EC Treaty does not itself define ‘capital movement’. However, the Court of Justice uses the nomenclature of capital movements annexed to the above mentioned directive as an indicative, non- exhaustive, list of capital movements. This nomenclature includes ‘investment in real estate’, both investment in real estate on national territory by non-residents and investment in real estate abroad by residents, as a capital movement category.

Consequently, the investment by Community citizens in real estate in the Balearic Islands is free. Any restrictions on such movements would represent an infringement of the EC Treaty unless it was allowed by Article 57 or justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. However, and according to the Court of Justice, these exceptions have to be understood in a narrow sense and exclude any interpretation based on economic considerations.

As far as the Honourable Member’s last question is concerned, the Commission would like to recall that Danish restrictions on the purchase of second homes are the one Member State specific exception to the free movement of capital within the Community. Protocol No 1 on the acquisition of property in Denmark is an integral part of the EC Treaty and there are no time limits set on its duration. Any changes in this particular provision would require a modification to the EC Treaty agreed by all Member States, including Denmark, or a unilateral relaxation by Denmark of its restrictions.

As regards candidates for Union membership, certain temporary exceptions to the EC Treaty have been granted in the context of accession negotiations. Among these are the transitional measures on real estate (agricultural land, forestland and secondary residences). However, unlike Protocol No 1, these measures are temporary.

(1) OJ L 178, 8.7.1988. C 364 E/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1645/01 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Extraordinary aid for the conversion of the fleet following the failure of negotiations on the EU- Morocco fisheries agreement

As a result of the recent failure of negotiations on the fisheries agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco, it was deemed necessary to restructure part of the fishing fleet of Portugal and Spain (the Member States directly affected) so as to enable them to resume fishing in other more distant fishing grounds, particularly through urgent and exceptional measures designed to provide financial support.

According to reports published in the Spanish press, the Spanish Government has warned the EU that it may require more than € 300 million to convert the fishing industry which previously fished off the Moroccan coast. According to the same source, Budget Commissioner Michaele Schreyer has stated that this figure is excessive given that Spain has already received € 240 million.

The Commission:

 Can it confirm these reports?

 Can it say what level of financial support has been requested by and granted to Portugal to provide similar support for Portuguese fishermen and fishing-vessel owners, who have also been directly and seriously affected by the breakdown of negotiations between the EU and Morocco?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

The Community response to the consequences of the non-renewal of the fisheries agreement with Morocco comprises several aspects:

 payment of compensation for vessels’ and fishermen’s temporary cessation of activity, pursuant to Article 16(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (1); such compensation has been paid since 1 January 2000 and is continuing to be paid in 2001;

 restructuring of the fleets concerned, to be done partly through existing structural programmes for the fisheries sector without increasing the overall appropriation, and partly through a specific action programme as requested by the Nice European Council in December 2000 (2);

 retraining of fishermen, following the same approach as for fleet restructuring;

 socio-economic diversification of the coastal areas affected, to be done through their regions’ integrated operational development programmes with assistance from the relevant Structural Funds: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and, where appropriate, the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)  Guidance Section.

It should be borne in mind that all the measures referred to above must be part-financed by the Member States concerned, in accordance with the general rules on the Structural Funds.

As regards the amount of Community support:

 the Member States concerned will have to mobilise appropriations from the Structural Funds under existing programmes, but it is not possible to quantify their amount in advance;

 the Commission is currently examining the options for mobilising additional appropriations under the specific action programme referred to above, with due regard for the financial perspective as requested by the European Council. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/167

The figures which the Honourable Member quotes in his question are merely working hypotheses among many. At the appropriate stage the budgetary authority will be responsible for determining the amount of the appropriations allocated to the specific action programme and, for its part, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 36 and 37 (ex Articles 42 and 43) of the EC Treaty the Community legislature will be responsible for determining how those appropriations are to be divided between Spain and Portugal.

(1) 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 (OJ L 337, 30.12.1999). (2) Point 59 of the Presidency conclusions.

(2001/C 364 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1648/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Support for fishermen and shipowners during periods of biological rest or inability to fish due to bad weather

In Portugal, where small-scale coastal fishing plays an extremely important role for fishing communities which largely depend on it, fishing trips are sometimes made impossible for various reasons. Fishermen and owners (of small coastal fishing vessels) do not receive any financial aid during such periods, making it difficult for these fishing communities to survive.

Storms and poor sea conditions are of particular significance during long periods in the winter, together with biological rest periods to protect stocks, particularly as regards sardines in the north and fishing for bivalves using dredges in the Algarve.

Even though this year, by way of exception, fishermen have been granted the right to some degree of support as regards biological rest periods, the problem will arise again in the future.

The Commission:

1. Is it aware of the above circumstances and the socio-economic difficulties which they cause for fishermen and small shipowners?

2. What measures will it take to provide financial support for such fishermen and shipowners where they are obliged to suspend fishing activities, either due to storms or during periods of biological rest to protect stocks?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The Commission is aware of the circumstances referred to by the Honourable Member. Rules in fact exist under which Member States may provide assistance for shipowners and fishermen affected by the temporary cessation of fishing activities as a result of unforeseeable events or plans to re-establish stocks that are under threat.

Article 16(1)(a) and (c) of 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) provides for the following measures and for the period they are to apply:

The Member States may grant compensation to fishermen and owners of vessels for the temporary cessation of activities in the following circumstances:

(a) in the event of unforeseeable circumstances, particularly those caused by biological factors; the granting of compensation may last for no more than two months per year or six months over the entire period from 2000 to 2006. The management authority shall forward suitable scientific proof to the Commission in advance; C 364 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(b) … (c) where a plan is introduced for the recovery of a resource threatened with exhaustion, decided by the Commission or by one or some Member States; the granting of compensation may last for no more than two years and may be extended by a further year.

Measures as indicated above may be implemented in the context of the relevant structural programmes, once a decision has been taken by the management authority of the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2001/C 364 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1654/01 by Prof. Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (12 June 2001)

Subject: Animal welfare and foie gras

Is it the Commission’s opinion that the production of foie gras by forcefeeding is compatible with any reasonable conception of animal welfare? Does the Commission contemplate taking any action on the basis of its opinion on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (26 July 2001)

The production of foie gras is an accepted and traditional practice in some Member States.

In the Community, Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 (1) establishes the main principles for the protection of all species of animal kept for farming purposes, including those kept for the production of foie gras.

Two recommendations for the protection of ducks and geese bred for the production of foie gras were adopted in June 1999 in the framework of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.

The recommendations state that the production of foie gras shall be carried out only where it is current practice and that the competent authorities shall monitor this type of production to ensure the implementation of the recommendations. The recommendations also state for the Parties to the Convention to inform the Standing Committee annually of the results obtained and measures taken to improve housing and management procedures and to control the production.

The Member States, all of which are contracting parties to the Convention, are expected to give effect to the recommendations. In addition the Commission will encourage the development of systems for feeding ducks that are less problematic for the welfare of the animals. At present the Commission does not envisage any proposals to oblige changes in feeding practices.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

(2001/C 364 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1655/01 by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission (12 June 2001)

Subject: Double fiscal deficit in the Balearic Islands

According to recent reports presented in the regional parliament of the Balearic Islands, Spanish government revenue in the region in 1999 stood at PTE 875 047 million, while national government expenditure was PTE 570 873 million. The fiscal deficit of the Balearic Islands vis-à-vis the Spanish state was, therefore, PTE 304 174. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/169

In only 17 years, the fiscal deficit of the Balearic Islands vis-à-vis the Spanish state has increased from PTE 7 500 million in 1981 to PTE 304 374 in 1998.

The region also contributes an annual average of PTE 32 081 million to the EU budget. It is in fact the Spanish region which contributes most per inhabitant to the EU, although it gets only PTE 10 167 million back in EU aid. This amounts to a negative balance of PTE 21 940 million per inhabitant.

The Balearic Islands thus suffer from a double fiscal deficit vis-à-vis both Madrid and Brussels.

In view of these circumstances, what is the Commission’s position on the double fiscal deficit affecting this region? Does the Commission believe that this deficit could be properly remedied by an appropriate distribution of EU funds? Does it intend to take any kind of measures to ensure that further fiscal imbalances are not generated in the present case?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Regarding the supposed ‘fiscal deficit’ of the Balearic Islands (one of the Comunidades Autónomas) vis-à-vis the Spanish State, in principle this is an internal issue of Spain and only the Spanish authorities can deal with it.

The financial relationships between territorial governments (Comunidades Autónomas) and the State are based on the Constitution and the LOFCA (‘Ley Orgánica de Financiación de las Comunidades Autónomas’). Within the legal framework of the LOFCA, an official body is responsible for negotiating agreements between the State and regional governments (Fiscal and Financial Policy Council). These agreements are revised each five years. The current system covers the period 1997-2001.

Regarding the supposed ‘fiscal deficit’ in relation to the Community two remarks should be made:

 On the one hand, the most important Community spending items are agricultural expenditure and structural and cohesion funds. Their main goals are maintaining farmers’ income, increasing the internal cohesion among Community regions and reaching real convergence among Member States. In accordance with these targets, a high percentage of total Community expenditure is addressed to those regions with lowest per capita income. The Commission considers this strategy, on which the current expenditure of these items is based, as appropriate.

 On the other hand, the financing of the Community budget is determined by the VAT resource, the gross national product (GNP) resource and the so-called own traditional resources. All these Community resources appear only as expenditure in the Central State budget. The financial links are established thus only between the Community and the Member State. The Commission therefore cannot comment on calculations of fiscal balances such as those proposed by the Honourable Member.

(2001/C 364 E/187) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1658/01 by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Corporate social responsibility

In the conclusions to the European Council Summit meeting in Stockholm, the Council welcomes ‘the initiatives taken by businesses to promote corporate social responsibility’ (paragraph 31). It also emerges from the conclusions that the Commission intends to present a green paper in June this year on corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR comprises a number of areas which were and could continue to be covered by agreements reached through collective bargaining or by Community legislation. C 364 E/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Can the Commission explain how it sees its role in the development of CSR? What areas does it consider should be dealt with by agreements reached through collective bargaining or by Community legislation, and what areas should be covered by voluntary commitments as an aspect of CSR?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis. They are thus expected to contribute to the strategic goal decided during the extraordinary European Council at Lisbon, 23 and 24 March 2000: ‘to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge- based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’.

Being socially responsible means not just fully meeting legal expectations, but also going beyond compliance by investing ‘more’ into human capital, the environment and relations with stakeholders.

The main contribution of a European approach to CSR would be to add value to and complement existing activities by providing an overall European framework on CSR practices, and by supporting best practice approaches to evaluation and verification of CSR practices.

The Commission hopes that the Green Paper on corporate social responsibility which it intends to present in July 2001 will further stimulate the debate at European and national level among all the actors involved. The concrete formulation of the role of the Commission in the development of corporate social responsibility will have to take account of the outcome of this debate.

(2001/C 364 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1659/01 by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2001)

Subject: Community rules concerning protection of the confidentiality of company lawyers’ opinions

While Belgium has recently recognised protection of the confidentiality of opinions given by company lawyers, there are as yet no Community rules governing that subject.

Following Belgium’s decision, therefore, it would seem to be in the general interest if all European company lawyers were covered by common rules in this respect.

Does the Commission plan to draw up a Community text which could be applied to this profession and to the protection of opinions given by company lawyers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

In accordance with Articles 40 and 47 (ex Articles 49 and 57) of the EC Treaty, Community directives in the area of professional law are aimed at facilitating the free movement of persons and not the harmonisation as such of the rules for exercising professions. Article 8 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (1) provides that a lawyer registered under his home-country professional title may practise as a salaried 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/171

lawyer in the employ of a public or private enterprise to the extent that the host Member State so permits for lawyers registered in that State. It was not deemed necessary to consider the question of professional secrecy of self-employed or salaried lawyers in this Directive.

The confidentiality of company lawyers’ opinions does not fall within the scope of these Articles. Consequently, the Commission does not intend to draft a Community text in this area.

It also does not appear to be the case that the question of the protection of the confidentiality of company lawyers’ opinions can be dealt with under Title IV of the EC Treaty, in particular on the basis of the provisions concerning cooperation on civil matters.

Nevertheless, the Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the ‘Charter of the European Professional Associations in support of the fight against organised crime’, which was drawn up in the light of the Council Recommendations to combat organised crime and signed on 27 July 1999 by a number of European professional associations, which included professionals such as lawyers.

(1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.

(2001/C 364 E/189) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1661/01 by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Commission (1 June 2001)

Subject: Imprisonment of an Egyptian-US sociologist

In Cairo on 21 May 2001 the eminent Egyptian-US sociologist Saad Eddin Ibrahim was given a seven-year prison sentence by the State Security Court. He was jailed immediately.

The same court has sentenced a further 27 employees of the equally prestigious Ibn Yaldun Centre for Social Development Studies to prison terms ranging from one to five years.

Both the Centre and Professor Ibrahim have spent many years protecting human rights, democracy and intellectual freedom.

The main accusation levelled against President Ibrahim (who holds dual Egyptian and US nationality) is based on the fact that the Ibn Yaldun Centre accepted $250 000 of aid from the Commission, some of which was used in order to produce a film which criticises fraudulent activities in Egyptian elections.

In view of the important work done by Professor Ibrahim and the Centre’s employees in support of democracy and human rights and the existence of the abovementioned EU aid, has the Commission taken (or is it intending to take) any action to help those who have been sentenced under such a bizarre judgment?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (10 July 2001)

Both the Presidency and the Commission have closely followed developments with respect to the charges levelled against Dr Ibrahim and his associates. When he and some of his colleagues were initially arrested and held without charge, appropriate channels were used to make clear the Union’s concern at their detention without charge and at the highly charged and speculative press campaign which risked compromising any chance of a fair trial.

When Dr Ibrahim and his colleagues were released and subsequently charged, inter alia, with misusing Community funds allocated to an ‘education for democracy’ project managed by Dr Ibrahim, the Union made a clear and public statement to the effect that the project concerned had been subject to normal monitoring and audit procedures; and these had given no cause for concern. In addition the Commission Delegation in Cairo made clear that the use of Community funds for such projects was entirely proper, and was covered by the Community-Egypt framework Agreement on the implementation of Financial and Technical Co-operation. C 364 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

During the present trial the Union registered its concern that the defence should have proper access to documentary evidence and that the proceedings should follow due legal process. Union observers have attended the trial throughout and they, together with many others, were disturbed at the manner, the timing, and the severity of the sentences on all the accused, and especially on Dr Ibrahim. The Union made an oral statement (23 May 2001) and the Union presidency issued a declaration (25 May 2001) to the effect that the Union was ‘deeply disturbed by the harsh sentences handed down by the Egyptian Supreme State Security Court’ (this declaration is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat).

The Court is obliged to explain the reasons for its verdict within 30 days of sentence and the convicted have limited rights of appeal on procedural grounds. It goes without saying that the next steps in this affair will be closely studied in the hope and expectation that the situation will be resolved in the best traditions of the Egyptian legal system.

(2001/C 364 E/190) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1664/01 by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Asymmetries in the internal electricity market

The failure to ensure uniform transposition of Community directives which are designed to liberalise public utilities is creating serious distortions within the internal market.

In the energy sector in particular, France has found ways of preserving essentially intact the role of Electricité de France (EDF), a state-owned monopoly in the electricity sector.

EDF is taking advantage of its dominant position on the French market (which it is guaranteed under national law) in order to acquire significant holdings in private companies operating within the same sector in other Member States. It has recently announced that it is to acquire 3,9 % of Montedison Spa, an Italian multi-utilities company which is also active in the electricity sector.

Such a state of affairs is unacceptable since the failure to establish a level playing field as required under Community law places the sector’s operators in different positions according to their Member State of origin and causes serious discrimination against operators from Member States which are more progressive in terms of liberalisation.

This situation also thwarts the liberalisation process initiated by the Community and discourages the Member States from actively pursuing such an objective. This will have an increasingly serious effect on the competitiveness of the European economic system.

In view of the above, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to prevent public companies which enjoy a monopoly status guaranteed under national law from exploiting that privilege in order to seize control of other businesses which are now denied such a privilege?

(2001/C 364 E/191) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1688/01 by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Purchase by Electricité de France (EDF) of a 20 % holding in Montedison

On 24 May 2001 Electricité de France (EDF), the French energy company, officially took up a 20 % stake in Montedison, the holding company which controls Edison-Sondel, an Italian private energy company (electricity and gas). 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/173

With the support of the French Government and French legislation, EDF has managed thus far to maintain its monopoly in the French electricity sector.

Exploiting its dominant position in a large national market, it has attempted on several occasions to acquire large holdings in private companies operating in the energy sector in other EU Member States.

Given that similar expansion attempts in other Member States have been challenged, and that an operator which is a 100 % publicly-owned monopoly in one Member State and is not quoted on the stock market is able to use the profits generated by its monopoly to gain a hold on other national markets, thus creating imbalances and distortions, how does the Commission  particularly its President and the Commissioners responsible for competition and energy policies  intend to guarantee the proper functioning of the internal market by ensuring fair competition, and what steps does it intend to take to prevent imbalances of this kind from occurring?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1664/01 and P-1688/01 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

In many respects the progressive creation of the internal market for electricity has been highly successful. Whilst the Directives themselves require market opening for electricity of only 30 % (rising to ± 35 % in 2003), an overwhelming majority of Member States have decided to go far further. Four Member States have already opened 100 % of their electricity markets, a further four will do so by 2003 and another three will open up their markets fully by 2007 at latest.

A similar picture exists regarding qualitative market opening  ensuring effective third party access to networks. It is rarely disputed that the most effective method to ensure non-discriminatory access to these essential facilities is through regulated third party access, enforced by an independent regulator, and real and effective unbundling of transmission and distribution from generation and supply.

However, this more rapid than expected movement towards full market opening and reliance on regulated third party access has resulted in very important market distortions and increasing inequalities between competing Community companies. Some Member States have limited market opening to the minimum legally required. This wide difference in both quantitative and qualitative market opening has lead to the progressive development of a very uneven internal market.

The Commission had a debate last 20th June on cross-border investment restrictions and energy market distortions.

As regards differences in the current extent of liberalisation in the energy sector, the Commission confirmed that these should be addressed by the rapid adoption by the Council and the Parliament or the Commission’s March 2001 proposals to further liberalise energy markets (all non-domestic electricity open to competition by 1st January 2003, non domestic gas open to competition by 1st January 2004 and all customers (including domestic) open to competition by 1st January 2001  see IP/01/356).

The Commission agreed that to address distortions of competition and inequalities in the short term before adoption of the further liberalisation proposals:

 it would monitor Member States to ensure timely and proper implementation of the existing electricity and gas liberalisation Directives and ensure that the Treaty’s competition rules are applied fully in the energy sector;

 in particular, the Commission will continue to apply the rules of the Treaties on restrictive business practices and abuse of a dominant market position against restrictions and distortions in supply competition and against discrimination in network access, to scrutinise any state aid granted to electricity and gas companies (including state aid in the nuclear sector) and to apply competition rules C 364 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

against limitations on consumer’s right to choose a supplier. Examples of such cases treated by the Commission in the last two years are the interventions against joint selling (e.g. GFU and EDF/CNR), reinforcements of dominant positions through mergers (e.g. VEBA/VIAG, EDF/EnBW), privileged network access (e.g. Danish/German and French/UK interconnectors), stranded cost schemes and locking-in of key customers (Gasnatural/Endesa).

The Commission also agreed that if adoption of the proposals to further liberalise energy markets were delayed, it would consider adopting itself Decisions or Directives, on the basis of Article 86 (ex Article 90) of the EC Treaty, and notably its third paragraph, to address possible distortions of competition resulting from different levels of liberalisation. Such and approach, whereby the Commission adopted Directives addressed to the Member States based on Article 86(3) of the EC Treaty was previously used in the telecommunications sector.

(2001/C 364 E/192) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1666/01 by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Failure to comply with Directive 85/337/EEC and Directive 97/11/EEC

In the townships of Conegliano and San Vendemiano, in Treviso Province (Italy), a four-lane highway known as the Tangenziale sud is at an advanced stage of planning. On account of its length and its nature, the highway in question is subject under Italian law to environmental impact assessment pursuant to Annex B of Directive 85/337/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC (2). Such a project would seriously and irreversibly damage the locality’s last remaining area of farmland and the course of the Monticano river, which has already been spoilt by pointless construction projects which have altered the balance thereof without bringing any advantage to the local population (for example, a sports hall which has never been completed). The project is located in proximity to densely populated areas. Although the Monticano river is subject to frequent flooding in the area concerned, hydro-geological studies have never been carried out  not even in connection with the recent town-planning scheme. No alternative to the project has ever been considered, even though the highway in question could be located in proximity to the nearby motorway corridor without pointlessly threatening the natural and urban environment. No thought has ever been given to widening the three-lane motorway so that it can absorb provincial traffic.

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to ensure compliance with Community, national and regional laws on environmental impact assessment (which is the only procedure capable of ensuring that alternatives which have never been considered in the course of road and infrastructure planning are assessed), with a view to protecting human health and improving the quality of human life, conserving variety of species, maintaining a balanced ecosystem and safeguarding the latter’s ability to reproduce itself?

(1) OJ L 216, 3.8.1991, p. 40. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 15.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

According to Council Directives 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) and 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, which has modified Directive 85/337/EEC, Member States are obliged to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/175

have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Projects covered by the Directive are identified in the annexes. The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law and, therefore, in this case, of assessing whether the Community legislation on environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been correctly applied in the Member State concerned.

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the work to which the question makes reference, could fall either into Annex I or into Annex II of the directive prior to or after the amendments.

Under Directive 85/337/EEC, prior to or after the amendments, projects of the classes listed in Annex I are to be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

Under Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments, projects falling into Annex II are to be made subject to an EIA where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. However, Member States are considered to be obliged to make a pre-assessment in order to establish whether Annex II projects need to be made subject to an EIA procedure.

Under Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified, for Annex II projects, Member States are obliged to determine through a case-by-case examination or thresholds or by the setting of criteria whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

In order to identify the correct Community law to be applied, it is necessary to check when the request for development consent was submitted to the competent authority: projects whose requests for development consent were submitted to a competent authority before 14 March 1999 are governed by the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC (prior to its 1997 amendment).

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

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2001/C 364 E/193) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1669/01 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (14 June 2001)

Subject: Daytime running lights and twilight switches

For some time now the Commission has been looking into the impact of daytime running lights and of the introduction of twilight switches on fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions.

1. Has this research produced any clear findings yet, and if so, what are the implications for the possible introduction of compulsory daytime running lights or encouragement of the introduction of twilight switches in the European Union?

2. If no clear findings have been made yet, when are they to be expected?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (20 July 2001)

The main point of daytime running lights is in the road safety benefits of their use and for this the Commission has undertaken several studies and is aware of many others world-wide. The conclusion of this work is that daytime running lights have a positive safety benefit. However, these studies have been conducted mainly in northern climates and there is a certain reluctance to automatically extend their findings to southern countries. At the moment, a study has just been concluded in the South of France and interim reports on the results are encouraging. Should the final report not be conclusive as to their generalisation, then the Commission will examine the introduction of twilight switches. C 364 E/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

However, on the negative impact that the use of daytime running lights would have for fuel consumption and hence the emissions of carbondioxide (CO2), there has not yet been any specific study done by the Commission. The Commission is aware of earlier work that has been done on their fuel consumption disbenefit by certain Member States and the overall conclusion is that daytime running lights would have the effect of increasing fuel consumption by between 1 % and 1,5 %. However, in view of the fact that in the meanwhile fuel consumption is affected more and more by other equipment in cars such as air- conditioners, the Commission is at the moment subsidising a study that intends to clarify this issue. The results should be available in mid-2002.

(2001/C 364 E/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1674/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (14 June 2001)

Subject: ILO conference  June 2001

Will the Commission use the ILO conference in June 2001 to draw attention to the repeated failures of governments such as India, Nepal and Pakistan to take adequate measures to eradicate the use of bonded labour?

Will the Commission make efforts to focus the ILO’s discussions on practical assistance to governments in order to ensure that a comprehensive assessment of the problem of bonded labour is made, that laws prohibiting the use of bonded labour are put into place and that monitoring systems are established to evaluate the impact of assistance offered to combat bonded labour?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (31 July 2001)

The Commission has studied the Global Report prepared by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) for discussion at the 2001 International Labour Conference with great care and believes the Report is a groundbreaking step for the international community in identifying areas where forced labour persists and in suggesting ways of tackling the problem.

With regard to India, Nepal and Pakistan, the Commission notes that the Report provides both indications as to the efforts that have already been undertaken by the countries concerned to eradicate bonded labour, and evidence of the extent to which different forms of bonded labour remain a widespread phenomenon. The Commission is hopeful that the clear identification of the problems through the follow-up to the ILO Declaration, coupled with ILO technical assistance, will contribute to eradicating the phenomenon.

(2001/C 364 E/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1677/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission (14 June 2001)

Subject: Redefinition of the NUTS

The Commission has submitted a proposal for the redefinition of the nomenclature of territorial units for statistical purposes (NUTS) with a view to drawing up the map for the Structural Funds which will form the basis for the decisions to be adopted for the forthcoming programming period.

The map drawn up on the basis of these ‘units for statistical purposes’ must take account of both richer and poorer regions within a single Member State.

To what extent and in what fashion is the Commission linking this redefinition to that applying to cohesion policy? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/177

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

The proposed Regulation does not seek to redefine the nomenclature of territorial units for statistical purposes (NUTS) used in the implementation of cohesion policy but to make good the absence of a legal basis for the current classification.

The Commission is not intending by means of this regulation to modify the existing maps of Community regions defined by the current NUTS classification of the Statistical Office of the European Communities. On the contrary, it is proposing to put in place clearer rules as a regulatory framework for future changes to the classification.

(2001/C 364 E/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1678/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Transport networks and regional planning

There is a clear correlation between the remote status of certain regions in the EU and their level of economic and social cohesion. There is also a visible concentration of Union resources in favour of the more developed and accessible regions of Europe.

Are there plans for greater coordination and interrelation of transport networks and regional planning at European level?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission takes the view that transport policy, and in particular that involving the development of trans-European transport networks has an important influence on regional planning and can help narrow the disparities between regions.

The second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (1) states that major efforts were made during the 1990s to provide the regions where development is lagging behind and the Cohesion countries with levels of infrastructure more similar to those in other regions and countries, in particular as regards road infrastructure. This progress was linked to EU structural expenditure with investments in transport infrastructure being targeted at the less developed regions and the Cohesion countries.

A study undertaken recently by the Commission clearly shows that the ‘transport’ component of the Cohesion Fund is highly advantageous for the less prosperous regions: 20 % of the least well-off ones receive 80 % of the funding and 40 % of the best-off ones receive under 1 %.

Emphasis should be placed also on the implementation of major projects such as the Øresund bridge and tunnel which improves links between the centre of the European Union and the Scandinavian countries where access is important for ensuring the regional cohesion of the Union even if those countries are not lagging behind in economic terms.

It is not correct to say, therefore, that Union resources are being concentrated on transport in the more developed and accessible regions of Europe.

As part of the preparations for a White Paper on the common transport policy and the review of the guidelines on trans-European transport networks, the Commission, however, has been looking at ways of strengthening the contribution the trans-European networks policy can make to the more balanced development of the territory of the Union. C 364 E/178 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

This indicates that improved distribution of transport flows on the territory of the Union is a basic requirement and that steps should be taken therefore to relieve congestion in the central regions and at the same time include the outlying regions in trade flows. New needs are emerging consequently such as the creation of cross-border areas by major infrastructures crossing natural barriers or the rebalancing of seaboard areas.

In the revised guidelines on trans-European networks which the Commission intends to present in autumn 2001, there are plans to put forward measures for removing bottlenecks and to include a small number of new major projects for achieving this aim.

The programme for the setting up of a European Spatial Planning Observatory Network (ESPON) will make it possible to examine in greater depth equal access for regions to infrastructure along with the planning impact of the trans-European transport networks policy.

The initial results of this work are expected in 2003 and could be incorporated in a wider-ranging review of the guidelines on trans-European transport networks which the Commission is planning to put forward in 2004 as a way among other things of introducing the idea of ‘sea motorways’ and creating better links between remote regions across the continent.

(1) COM(2001) 24 final.

(2001/C 364 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1686/01 by Ilka Schröder (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (14 June 2001)

Subject: Video monitoring in nursery schools

In 1998, in connection with Netdays ’98, the European Union funded a project in Spain that involved the video monitoring of various nursery schools and allowed video footage of the children and nursery school staff to be accessed by parents via the web (www.baby-net.org).

On what grounds was this project in Spain deemed eligible to receive funding?

Were its stated objectives achieved, and is the project to be regarded as a success?

If other European countries also use video technology in the education sector (including schools, school buses etc), should this kind of video use be extended in the EU, and are such projects subject to scientific monitoring?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (26 July 2001)

The Commission contributed to the funding of the Netd@ys project, ‘BabyNET’, as it fulfilled all of the selection criteria which had been set for the consideration of Netd@ys projects in 1998.

The project was well presented and it contained much interesting and relevant information. The evaluators were particularly impressed with the clarity of the project’s objectives, the quality of the content, the pedagogical effect, the European added value, the potential impact and the proposals for its wider dissemination.

From the information provided, it appears that the project has met its objectives and it is considered to be a success.

The project was promoted on the Netd@ys Europe 1998 Netd@ys website which a large number of people, including educational specialists, had access to. It was for them to decide if the project could be adapted to meet their specific needs and if this method of using video as an educational tool could be effectively extended in the Community. The Commission currently has no plans to extend the use of the video as set out in the BabyNET project. The pedagogical impact of the project was monitored by specialists. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/179

(2001/C 364 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1690/01 by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission (6 June 2001)

Subject: Cohesion policy

On 31 January 2001 Mr Barnier, the Commissioner responsible for regional policy, submitted the second report on social and economic cohesion to the European Parliament. The report provides an assessment of the cohesion policy conducted since 1989 and prepares the ground for a debate on the future of that policy in the context of an enlarged Union.

Although it would appear that, at macro-economic level, progress towards cohesion has been made over the last 20 years, it has to be acknowledged that, within most of the Member States, inequalities are growing.

The outmost regions in general and the island of Réunion in particular do not seem to be experiencing the kind of progress which is apparent in many European regions. Réunion still has a 37 % unemployment rate and there are many young people amongst the jobless.

Even though enlargement is intended to anchor democracy even more firmly within Europe, it will undoubtedly have an impact on the EU’s most fragile regions: simple arithmetic dictates that average per capita GDP is going to fall, for which reason the regions which are currently eligible for Objective 1 (as is the case with Réunion) may eventually lose that status on purely technical grounds.

Does the Commission therefore consider per capita GDP still to be an appropriate criterion?

Should per capita GDP not be supplemented by other, more objective criteria, such as the unemployment rate?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (9 July 2001)

The situation in the outermost regions is dealt with in the 2nd Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (1). Its statistical annexes show that between 1988 and 1998 Réunion’s GDP per head rose from 43 % to 50 % of the Community average.

Among the priorities of the future cohesion policy are regions with a geographical handicap, including the outermost ones. The Report concludes that the criterion of GDP per head measured in terms of purchasing power standards at NUTS (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) 2 level remains fully appropriate, as demonstrated in the comparative analysis in Part I.

The Commission has launched a wide-ranging debate on future cohesion policy, including the eligibility criteria, and will in due time present proposals to the other Institutions.

It is clear that given its continuing low GDP per head Réunion will after enlargement still fall among the least developed Community regions and thus qualify for structural support.

(1) COM(2001) 24 final.

(2001/C 364 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1695/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (6 June 2001)

Subject: Conservation reservoirs on the Aegean islands

One of the biggest problems facing the Aegean islands, especially during the summer months, is drought, which has a severe economic and social impact. In view of this situation, an EU-funded programme has C 364 E/180 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

been launched to build conservation reservoirs, which have been completed on some islands and are under construction on others. However, local press reports and complaints from members of the public claim that the construction is substandard and it is unclear whether environmental impact assessments or feasibility studies have been carried out.

Will the Commission say:

 whether the allegations that no environmental impact assessments or feasibility studies have been carried out in respect of these projects are true,

 whether studies of the subsoil rock have been carried out to determine the efficiency and watertightness of the reservoirs,

 whether there is any timetable for the construction of the reservoirs, and whether the projects are running to schedule?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2001)

The projects to which the Honourable Member refers (hill reservoirs and small dams on the Greek islands) have mostly been financed under the 1989-1993 and 1994-1999 Community support frameworks.

In the main they provide for both irrigation and drinking water. Collecting water in this way in Southern Europe allows the winter run-off, which is generally of good quality, to be exploited and permits economic and social development particularly on islands.

In 1998 the Commission had a private consultancy assess 26 projects of this type. Its conclusions were sent to the Greek authorities accompanied by recommendations for resolving the technical problems found in 11 of them.

During the period 1989-1993 Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) was not correctly applied in Greece. In the following years the situation was substantially improved, the Commission providing both assistance and impetus, and on the basis of the technical specifications environmental studies accompanied all the part- financed projects proposed. The often modest size and budget of these projects meant that no cost-benefit or feasibility study was required for part-financing from the Structural Funds. For the larger projects such studies were made.

Thus in general the need for and advisability of these projects was adequately demonstrated. However the hydrogeological studies and final plans did not in all cases satisfactorily assess rock and soil permeability and all construction parameters. This resulted in inadequate water collection owing to leakage through the rock. These studies and plans are the Member State’s responsibility. The most commonly adopted solution has been to line the reservoir bottom with a watertight membrane. Most of the additional work of this type has been paid for from national funds with no Community contribution.

There is no general timetable for these projects. Each has followed its own timetable as indicated in the technical specifications and adjusted to reality on the ground. In the case of certain reservoirs and dams the downstream work (irrigation and drinking water networks) may fall within the 2000-2006 programming period.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/181

(2001/C 364 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1699/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Poor quality of fixed-line telephone services in Greece

The quality of fixed-line telephone services in Greece, which are provided by the Hellenic Tele- communications Organisation (OTE), is extremely poor. For example, the waiting period for a new telephone connection is five working days, 17,4 % of connections have at least one technical problem per year and in at least 10 % of those cases, it takes two or more days to restore the line to working order. As a result of such poor quality, the level of satisfaction of Greek citizens with fixed-line telephone services in 1999 was appreciably below the EU average, according to the European Customer Satisfaction Index.

1. What were the corresponding quality indicators for fixed-line telephone services in the other Member States in 1999?

2. Does the Commission have more recent data for these particular indicators in the Member States?

3. What other indicators are used to measure the quality of fixed-line telephone services in the EU and what data is the Commission able to provide?

4. Does the Commission consider that there is a link between the poor quality of fixed-line telephone services in Greece and OTE’s monopoly position?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

In relation to the first question of the Honourable Member about quality indicators for fixed-line telephone services identified in the other Member States in 1999 (except for Greece) the Commission has taken the initiative to collect and publish relevant data in its 5th and 6th Implementation Reports (1). In particular in the 6th Report, data were published concerning supply time for initial connection, fault rate per access line, fault repair time (see Annex I which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat). The data were submitted by the National Regulatory Authorities of each Member State to the Commission and they refer to year 1999. The scope of their assessment is limited as a result of the fact that they are based on slightly different definitions.

In relation to the second question on whether the Commission has more recent data for these particular indicators in the Member States, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that, as it is evident in Annex I, Member States have submitted to the Commission only limited data for the first semester of 2000.

In relation to the question on what other indicators are used to measure the quality of fixed-line telephony services in the Community and data that the Commission is able to provide, the Commission would like to refer again to the 6th Implementation Report, Annex 3. There it reports on quality indicators referring to call set up time, response time for operator services, response time for directory enquiry services, proportion of coin and card operated public pay-telephones in working order, billing accuracy (see Annex II which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat).

In relation to the last question on whether the Commission considers that there is a link between the poor quality of fixed-line telephone service in Greece and OTE’s monopoly position, the Commission would like to emphasise that one of the main reasons for promoting liberalisation in the telecommunications markets is that it expects that through the development of competition consumers of telecommunications services will be at the position to enjoy better quality of services. Nevertheless, it seems that substantial improvements have been seen during the past few years in the provision of fixed-line telephony services in Greece. In any case, National Regulatory Authorities are expected, when necessary, to set quality standards for voice telephony services and make sure that operators notified as having significant market power keep C 364 E/182 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

up to date measurement of the performance obtained in relation to the indicators listed in the Annex III to Directive 98/10/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment (2).

(1) COM(1999) 537 final and COM(2000) 814 final. (2) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998.

(2001/C 364 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1703/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Taxation on cars

When you buy a bottle of wine in an EU Member State you pay the tax in the country from which it is purchased. When you buy a car in an EU Member State you pay the tax in the country in which the car is to be registered and not in the country in which it was originally purchased. Does the Commission not feel that the purchasing of goods should be treated in the same way?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

When a non-taxable person purchases goods, other than those subject to excise duty, in a Member State and he transports the goods himself to another Member State, for example where he has his permanent address or usually resides, he pays the VAT of the Member State where he purchases the goods. However, when the goods concerned are new means of transport, the Council decided in 1992 to adopt a special scheme whereby a new taxable event was created. This new taxable event, mentioned under Article 28a(1)(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive, Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes  Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) is the intracommunity acquisition of new means of transport affected for consideration within the Member State by taxable persons, non-taxable legal persons or by any other non-taxable person. This implies that for new means of transport, purchased by a non-taxable person, the VAT becomes due in the Member State of arrival, which is normally where the new means of transport is to be registered.

New means of transport are defined under Article 28a(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive.

A car will be considered a new means of transport when:

 its capacity exceeds 48 cc or 7,2 kilowatts and it is intended for the transport of persons or goods and;

 it is supplied not more than 6 months after the date of first entry into service or;

 it has traveled less than 6 000 kilometers.

When introducing the current VAT arrangements, the Council decided to adopt a specific scheme for the supplies of new means of transport because the existing divergences in rates applicable in the different Member States were likely to create severe distortions of competition for the goods concerned. The risk of a change in commercial flows was estimated to be too important to allow non-taxable persons to purchase these goods at the VAT rate of the Member State of origin and therefore these derogatory provisions were inserted for the supplies of new cars. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/183

Similar budgetary considerations apply with respect to other taxes related to passenger cars, and in particular registration and annual circulation taxes, concerning which so far there is little Community legislation. Therefore, each Member State is allowed to apply its national fiscal provisions providing that it respects the general provisions of the EC Treaty and in particular the non-discrimination clause. Existing harmonisation only concerns two Council Directives, adopted in 1983 (2).

The Commission presented a Proposal for a Council Directive (3) in 1998, with the overall objective of bringing the tax treatment of vehicles, which accompany private individuals moving from one Member State to another, more in line with the concept and principles of the Single Market and updating the provisions of the two Council Directives mentioned above. This proposal remains on the Council’s table as any decision on fiscal matters needs to be taken by unanimity at the Council.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. (2) Council Directives 83/182/EEC and 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983, concerning respectivelly tax exemptions for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another, and exemptions applicable to permanent imports from one Member State to another of the personal property of individuals, including passenger cars (OJ L 105, 23.4.1983). (3) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.

(2001/C 364 E/202) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1704/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Selection procedures for R & D projects for 2002-2006

In his answer to Question E-0716/01 (1), Commissioner Busquin stressed that R & D actions will be applied on the basis of annual decisions as regards both the special subjects chosen and the financial resources allocated, while, however, choices will be made on the basis of need, in line with the assessment made by an internal user group, supported by the opinion of an independent consultative group of high-level scientific and industrial experts, adding that the financial allocation to R & D projects on fisheries and marine sciences will depend on the quality of the proposals received.

1. Can the Commission provide more details on the form and content of the calls for R & D projects for 2002-2006 in the area of fisheries and marine sciences?

2. Can the Commission provide information on the criteria which it used for the selection of R & D projects in the area of fisheries and marine sciences for 1998-2002 and those which it intends to use for 2002-2006?

3. Can the Commission provide more details on its criteria for distribution of the available Community resources among the projects selected? Will this distribution depend exclusively on project quality?

4. Can the Commission provide detailed information on the membership and working methods of both the internal user group and the independent consultative group of high-level scientific and industrial experts?

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 107.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2001)

The form and content of the calls for Research and Technological Development (RTD) projects for 2002- 2006 relating to fisheries and marine science cannot be specified at the present time. As indicated in the C 364 E/184 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-716/01, such research could be located, on the one hand, within the priority areas on ‘food safety and health risks’ and ‘sustainable development and global change’, and, on the other hand, within the activity ‘anticipating the Community’s scientific and technological needs’.

In both cases, the details of calls to be launched will depend on the development of work programmes, which can only be carried out following the decisions of Parliament and Council on the framework programme and on the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and the decisions of Council on the specific programmes.

Criteria for the selection of projects within the Fifth framework programme for RTD are published in the calls for proposals and the associated work programmes. An evaluation manual has also been published, providing generic information on the approach to proposal evaluation and selection. The basic criteria against which proposals are judged throughout the Fifth framework programme are their scientific and technological excellence, their European added value, their relevance to economic and societal needs and the quality of management. For the next framework programme, the Commission has proposed to use criteria related to the objectives of the programme, scientific and technological excellence, Community value added and management capacity.

With respect to the research carried out under the proposed heading ‘anticipating the Community’s scientific and technological needs’, it will be important to distinguish between the allocation of resources to research topics, which could include topics for research in support of fisheries policy, and the subsequent allocation of funds within particular topics to individual projects, following calls for proposals.

As an initial step, a series of priorities will be determined, reflecting the foreseeable needs for research in support of Community policies and at the leading edge of knowledge. Subsequently, allocation of resources to research topics will be done by means of an annual procedure, briefly described in the Commission’s previous answer, which will start with the publication of a ‘call for expressions of interest’ to which, for example, the scientific and industrial community can respond. The criteria applying to the selection of topics will include the contribution of the proposed topics to the definition and development of policies; their potential contribution to Community competitiveness, strengthening the scientific and technological basis of Community industry, and the creation of the European Research Area; and their scientific relevance and feasibility.

As topics are selected in this way on an annual basis, they will be taken up in the work programme, and serve as the basis for future calls for research proposals. Proposals will then be selected according to clear, published criteria in line with current practice as described above.

The internal user group will consist of representatives of those Directorate Generals (DGs) of the Commission that are concerned with, or have an interest as users of research. It will be chaired by the Director General of the Research DG and will draw on the experience of the inter-service users’ group established in January 2001 by the Commission for the Joint Research Centre. As regards consultation of high-level independent scientific and industrial experts, this is already provided for within some policy areas in the Commission. In addition, to help with advice on the overall balance of research topics, the Commission has recently established the European Research Advisory Board which could be called on to help with such advice.

(2001/C 364 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1707/01 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Road link between Vic and Olot (Catalonia, Spain)

The proposed road link between Vic and Olot would effectively be a motorway and represents a serious threat to ecosystems of high ecological value, in a mountain area with a damp climate and with woodlands 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/185

and local plant species whose distribution in many cases meets its southern border there. The scheme would entail major and irreversible environmental damage to an area characterised by cultivated fields set in valleys with highly fertile soil and a landscape of remarkable beauty.

The proposed route also involves construction of the Bracons tunnel and would cross areas of natural beauty included in the Natura 2000 network.

Does the Commission consider that the pros and cons of this infrastructural project have been weighed up to their last consequences and that due account has been taken of the ‘principle of prevention’ which should prevail in the case of any public works scheme entailing serious damage to the natural and human environment in a region?

Can the Commission state whether this scheme is to receive financing from the Cohesion Fund?

Does the Commission not consider that Directives 85/337/EEC (1) and 92/43/EEC (2), on environmental impact and protected habitats respectively, should apply in this case?

What action can the Commission take to ensure compliance with the Community environmental legislation in this case?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The Commission is aware of the matters raised by the Honourable Member.

Following Written Question E-374/99 by Mr Gutiérrez Diaz (1), in 1999 the Commission in fact proceeded to launch an own-initiative investigation to check whether the project in question infringed Community legislation or not.

Following the request from the Commission for information in order to conduct this investigation, the Spanish authorities forwarded the environmental impact statement assessment concerning this project, a whole series of measures to reduce the impact on local populations, compensatory measures relating to agricultural land and compensatory measures for flora and fauna, such as the financing of ecological studies in the area and the drawing up of a special protection plan for rivers and areas affected by the access to the Braçons tunnel.

Given these circumstances and on the basis of the information forwarded, the Commission was unable to detect any infringement of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2), nor of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (3). It therefore closed its investigation on 28 March 2001.

With regard to any possible co-financing of the link between Vic and Olot under the Cohesion Fund, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the answer given to Written Question E-4162/ 00 by Mr Knörr Borras (4).

(1) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ L 73, 14.3.1997). (4) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 83. C 364 E/186 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1708/01 by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Sale and manufacture of chewing tobacco in contravention of the directive

The self-governing Åland Islands (Finland) are not complying with the ban on chewing tobacco which is in force in the EU, but permit the sale of such tobacco on their own territory and on ferries between Finland and Sweden. The Åland Islands have not obtained a special authorisation from the Commission to continue selling chewing tobacco as Sweden has done. Monitoring the implementation of the directive is the task of the Commission. The tobacco on sale on the Islands and on ferries is produced in Sweden. It is public knowledge that production of chewing tobacco is beginning on the Islands for the purpose of sale on ferries.

When Sweden obtained its special exemption for the sale of chewing tobacco, it undertook that chewing tobacco produced and sold in Sweden would not be placed on the market in other Member States in which its sale was prohibited. This undertaking is being publicly broken, because Swedish chewing tobacco is on open sale on the Åland Islands and on ferries between Sweden and Finland. It has also been demonstrated by experience, as shown in the media, that it can easily be purchased (for example) from kiosks in Finland.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to halt the sale on the Finnish Åland Islands and elsewhere in Finland of chewing tobacco in contravention of the directive prohibiting its sale? What measures does the Commission propose to take to ensure that Sweden complies with the conditions of the exemption it obtained under the EU Treaty and ensures that Swedish chewing tobacco is no longer placed on the market in the other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The prohibition to place on the market tobacco for oral use which is provided for in Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (1) is applicable to the entire territory of Finland.

The Commission has recently been informed by a complaint that this ban may not have been implemented in the Åland Islands. For this reason, the Commission will ask the Finnish Government to clarify whether the necessary legislation is in force in the Åland Islands so that the provision referred to above is correctly implemented.

The Commission will also inquire of the Swedish authorities on how they enforce the requirement to take all necessary measures to ensure that tobacco for oral use legally marketed in Sweden is not put on the market in the other Member States in accordance with Article 151 and Annex XV of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.

(1) OJ L 194, 18.7.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/205) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1712/01 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Trafficking in young footballers

It has been established that, in various Member States, young footballers are being hired from outside the European Union in ways which involve breaking the law. Here are a few examples: a false passport from 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/187

one Member State is obtained for the footballer and used to obtain residence and work permits in another; one football club lends a young foreign player to a club in another Member State without the necessary formalities being complied with; players from outside the Union are employed on terms different to those which apply to equivalent players of European nationalities. The differences in regulations between Member States result firstly in an uncoordinated approach to this problem and secondly to the persistence of the existing situation due to constant competition between professional football clubs in the various Member States.

In the conclusions of the Presidency of the European Council (Nice, 7, 8 and 9 December 2000), concern was expressed about commercial transactions targeting minors in sport, including those from third countries, inasmuch as they did not comply with existing labour legislation or endangered the health and welfare of young sportsmen and -women.

On 5 March 2001, in the framework agreement on international football transfers, the Commission agreed with FIFA the principle that young footballers should be afforded special protection.

1. Does the Commission have any information about the extent of trafficking in young footballers from outside the European Union by football clubs within the European Union and if so, how are national and European law being violated?

2. Can sportsmen and -women who are minors be professionally employed by sports clubs in the European Union? Does not this contravene national and European law?

3. Does the Commission know how the Member States are trying to tackle this problem at national level?

4. Will the Commission investigate whether additional European measures are called for, and if so, what measures?

5. How will the Commission further elaborate the framework agreements on the protection of young footballers contained in the agreement with FIFA regarding international transfers so that the agreement provides adequate protection to young players from outside the European Union?

6. Do FIFA’s ‘players’ agents’ rules’ for football agents provide an adequate guarantee of protection of young footballers against trafficking in persons and other illegal practices?

7. In the context of the free movement of persons, services and capital, would it be desirable to adopt European legislation on the exercise of the profession or professional activities of a ‘sports agent’ with the aim of ensuring equal treatment of footballers (particularly young footballers) and other sportsmen and - women from other sporting disciplines in all Member States and thus protect their rights?

8. In some Member States, the activities of ‘sports agents’ are covered by legislation, and the rights of sportsmen and -women in connection with these activities are protected. Is there a need to adopt European legislation focusing on the social and employment rights of sportsmen and -women (particularly those who are young)?

9. Is it necessary to include the subject of combating trafficking in persons and the international activities of sports agents in the Commission’s negotiations with the applicant countries? Is the Commission also considering including this topic in its external policy and in the agreements which it concludes with the applicant countries?

10. What measures will the Commission adopt against national and international sports federations, sports associations and sports agents which/who violate European or national legislation on employment, social affairs, taxation, trade or access to and residence in the territory of the Member States of the European Union? C 364 E/188 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Honourable Member raises the question of the protection of young sportsmen and sportswomen, which was mentioned in the Declaration ‘on the specific characteristics of sport and its social function in Europe, of which account should be taken in implementing common policies’, which was adopted at the Nice European Council of December 2000 (1). Like the Council, the Commission is sensitive to this concern, which it addressed in the Helsinki Report on Sport (2) and at the European Sports Forum in Lille on 26 and 27 October 2000, which included a workshop on the protection of young people. Moreover, the specific situation of young people under the age of 18 was carefully examined in the discussions between the Commission and FIFA on the rules applicable to international transfers of footballers.

The Honourable Member raises ten questions.

1. The Commission has no information on the extent of the ‘trafficking in young footballers’ from third countries. The information that it has received comes from the press or national reports. Because of the responsibilities involved, the initial legislative and regulatory measures in this area were taken at national level.

2. The Council adopted Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work (3). This Directive is designed to ban work by children (but contains certain possibilities of derogations for the Member States), regulate and protect work done by adolescents and, in general, ensure that all employers provide young people with working conditions that are adapted to their age.

3. Not all Member States seem to be affected by this phenomenon in the same way, which explains the diversity of the national responses. Certain Member States do not appear to have adopted any specific measures, while others have gone as far as to ban all commercial transactions involving under-age sportsmen and -women.

4. The Commission currently does not intend to have a study carried out in order to assess the extent of this phenomenon.

5. The protection of minors was one of the main subjects discussed by FIFA and the Commission. The aim was especially to reconcile the right of workers, including minors who have reached the minimum age for access to employment in the host country, to freedom of movement and the concern to protect this category of workers, which is exposed to particular risks. The solution which was reached on 5 March 2001 ensures compliance with both these principles, the implementation of which is the responsibility of FIFA. It is not up to the Commission to draw up rules for the protection of minors. As guardian of the EC Treaty, it must limit itself to ensuring compliance with Community law. The Commission therefore does not have the power to extend this reference framework.

6., 7. and 8. As far as players’ agents are concerned, following a procedure at the Commission on the basis of the competition rules, FIFA changed the way in which the profession is organised in order to improve its ethics. These new FIFA rules concerning players’ agents entered into force on 1 March 2001. Certain Member States have also chosen to adopt legislation in order to apply stricter rules to the activities of players’ agents.

9. Full account is being taken of the acquis communautaire in the negotiations with the applicant countries. This applies, for example, to the principles of freedom of movement or Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work. The Commission has no plans to deal specifically with the question of players’ agents in the accession negotiations.

10. The Commission and the Member States must complement each other in their efforts to ensure compliance with Community law and national law. At Community level, the EC Treaty provides for procedures to achieve this objective. In some cases, these procedures can be used to take direct action 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/189

against sporting federations, for example under competition rules. On the other hand, in a number of areas, any disputes on the application of Community law are a matter for the national courts.

(1) Nice European Council  7, 8 and 9 December 2000  Annex IV to the Presidency Conclusions: ‘Declaration on the specific characteristics of sport and its social function in Europe, of which account should be taken in implementing common policies’. (2) Report of the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social functions of sport within the Community framework  the Helsinki Report on Sport  COM(1999) 644 final. (3) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.

(2001/C 364 E/206) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1718/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Differences in interpretation in the various Member States with regard to the participation or exclusion of independent auditors and environmental auditors in the implementation of the EMAS scheme.

1. Does the Commission remember that in relation to the regulation on the voluntary participation of organisations in the Community environmental management and audit scheme (EMAS) the European Parliament adopted an amendment in the first two readings to the effect that large verification bodies would lose their monopoly position as EMAS verifiers so that independent auditors and environmental auditors would also be able to carry out this task, but that this provision was not included in the final text adopted at third reading on 14 February 2001 as a result of the conciliation procedure?

2. Can the Commission confirm that current practice differs greatly from Member State to Member State, so that in Germany independent auditors are permitted to carry out these tasks whereas large bodies in the Netherlands and Denmark are attempting to prevent this?

3. Is the Commission aware that obstacles are being created in the Netherlands by the Accreditation Council (Raad voor de Accreditatie) and, following suit, by the Foundation for the Coordination of Certification of Environmental Management Systems (Stichting Coördinatie Certificatie Milieuzorgsystemen  SCCM) which are in a position to exclude the approximately 80 environmental auditors from the impregnable bulwark constituted by the certifying bodies?

4. Is the Commission aware of the Dutch draft bill No 27683 which aims to amend Article 12 of the Environmental Management Act in connection with the revision of the EMAS regulation but which does not take into account the freedom to provide services presumed in the EMAS regulation? Does the Commission consider this draft bill to be compatible with the spirit of the regulation?

5. What is the Commission’s interpretation of the manner in which independent auditors and environmental auditors may be allowed to carry out or be excluded from such activities in future? Which interpretation should in future be considered correct, the German or the Dutch/Danish interpretation? Or does the Commission consider it acceptable that in practice different arrangements continue to apply in the various Member States with the consequences that this entails as regards the legal situation of this profession?

6. Does the Commission intend to allow the differences in interpretation in the various Member States to continue in the long term? If not, how and when does it intend to solve this problem?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

1. and 2. It never was the case that the EMAS Regulation, either in its original version (1) or in its amended version (2), restricted access to the profession of EMAS environmental verifier to organisations alone. On the contrary, the EMAS Regulation states that national accreditation bodies may accredit individuals, organisations or both, as environmental verifiers (3). C 364 E/190 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

This option is open to the Member States under the subsidiarity principle, allowing them in particular to take into account the environmental certification structure which existed previously. Whichever option the Member State chooses in adopting a national accreditation system, the accredited environmental verifiers must be independent of the activities they are verifying.

Under Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 (2), Member States have 12 months from the date of entry into force of the Regulation to have fully operational accreditation systems in place. It is therefore difficult to judge in advance whether they will choose organisations or individuals as EMAS verifiers.

Accordingly, the Commission cannot for the moment uphold the view that certain verification bodies are preventing individuals from participating in the EMAS accreditation scheme.

3. The concept of ‘environmental verifier’ relates only to the EMAS Regulation, so that the reference made in the question to 80 verifiers who may be excluded from verification is not very clear. Either these are 80 environmental verifiers accredited in accordance with the EMAS Regulation or they are individuals with other responsibilities for whom the conditions for pursuing their profession are not laid down in the EMAS Regulation. It should be mentioned here that the Community register of accredited environmental verifiers contains only six verifiers for the Netherlands.

4. The Commission has not yet officially received the Dutch bill referred to, and cannot therefore comment on its compatibility with Regulation (EC) No 761/2001.

5. and 6. As already stated in 1 and 2 above, Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 leaves it to the Member States to choose what type of environmental verifiers they are going to accredit (individuals, organisations or both), so exercising this option cannot be understood as a difference in interpretation of the Regulation. At any rate, in accordance with the principle of freedom to provide services environmental verifiers accredited in one Member State, whether organisations or individuals, may carry out their duties in any other Member State, as, incidentally, Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 reiterates.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 of 29 June 1993 allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (OJ L 168, 10.7.1993). (2) OJ L 114, 24.4.2001. (3) Cf Annex III A to Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 and Annex V 5.1 to Regulation (EEC) No 761/2001.

(2001/C 364 E/207) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1720/01 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: European grant to the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (B.P.R.C.) in Rijswijk

Can the Commission confirm that around € 3 million is given annually for research projects of the B.P.R.C. in Rijswijk?

Is the Commission aware that this centre is heavily criticised on the grounds that:

 experiments on primates which have been banned for ethical reasons in a number of countries are continuing to be carried out there, even, to a limited extent, on chimpanzees;

 the purpose of the experiments is regularly called into question, and the B.P.R.C. receives scarcely any support from the pharmaceutical industry;

 the housing in which the apes are kept is exceptionally poor?

Under what budget line of the Commission’s budget does this grant come, and what is the legal basis for it? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/191

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

Under the Fifth framework programme for Research and Technological Development (RTD) of the Community (1998-2002) Decision No 182/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 December 1999) (1), the Commission has so far funded the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) to a total amount of approximately € 4,3 million. The funding encompasses several three-year research projects started in 1999 and 2000. They cover research areas, such as vaccine and drug development for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), tuberculosis, malaria and hepatitis C.

The BPRC is mainly participating in research projects funded within the Quality of Life Programme (Budget line: B1.6111) under the Fifth RTD framework programme of the Community.

The Commission has been most vigilant as regards animal experiments and animal welfare in implementing the Fifth framework programme.

The annex of the Fifth framework programme, concerning the Quality of Life Programme and the annex of the specific program on Quality of Life (2) both specify that funding of research involving animals is restricted under this programme with regard to animal experiments and tests on animals, which should, when ever possible, be replaced with in vitro or other alternative methods. An obligation is placed on all applicants for proposals to describe the procedures adopted to respect the principles of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) and to protect the welfare of animals.

In addition, research on the development of alternatives to animal experiments and animal welfare is supported under this programme.

An independent ethical review has been implemented systematically under the Quality of Life specific programme for proposals dealing with sensitive issues such as the use of non-human primates. The ethical review panel includes, among others, representatives of animal welfare groups. The ethical review ensures that all research involving animals are conducted in accordance with Council Directive 86/609/CEE of 24 November 1986 (3). It takes account of the overall benefit of the research proposed in relation to the possible costs in terms of animal suffering. Furthermore, participants in research projects must fulfil all national legal and ethical requirements. Funding of the project will not be granted before all ethical questions has been answered satisfactorily.

The BPRC, which is situated in the Community but independent of the Community, has engaged itself contractually to fulfil all national legal and ethical requirements.

(1) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999. (2) Council Decision 1999/167/EC of 25 January 1999 adopting a specific programme for research, tecnological development and demonstration on quality of life and management of living resources (1998 to 2002), (OJ L 64, 12.3.1999). (3) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.

(2001/C 364 E/208) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1723/01 by Willi Görlach (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: Threat posed to European vine growing by phylloxera

Grape phylloxera (Phylloxera, Dactylasphaera vitifoliae or Viteus vitifolii) is a vine pest which, in the previous century, caused huge devastation to European vineyards.

How does the Commission assess the current threat to the European vine growing sector from phylloxera? C 364 E/192 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

What is the Commission’s view of the preventive management measures taken by individual EU Member States to combat phylloxera?

Does the Commission recommend the use of carbon disulphide to combat phylloxera?

How effective, in the Commission’s view, is the Bayer AG product Confidor against the leaf galling form of phylloxera?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

The Grapevine phylloxera, Daktulosphairas vitifoliae (Fitch), has for principal hosts the plants of the genus Vitis L. It is present in the following Member States: Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal and United Kingdom. The Community legislation recognises this insect as being a harmful organism whose introduction into, and spread within, all Member States shall be banned if it is present on plants of Vitis L., other than fruit and seeds. Therefore, it is listed under point 2 of Annex II, Part A, Section II to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community ( (1)), as last amended by Commission directive 2001/33/EC of 8 May 2001( (2)).

The Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, has among its responsibilities the control of the harmonised implementation of the Community legislation in the plant health field. Within the framework of this mandate, FVO officials regularly carry out missions in the Member States. Moreover, since 1996, Member States have not notified the Commission of any interception of Daktulosphaira vitifoliae (Fitch) on plants of Vitis L. produced in the Community.

The use of plant protection products in the Community is regulated by Council Directive 91/414/EC of 15 July 1991, on the placing of plant protection products on the market ( (3)). Under the Directive, the Commission is responsible for assessing the safety of the active ingredients used in such products and the Member States are responsible, at national level, for evaluating and authorising the products themselves. In so doing, the Member States have the competence to regulate the conditions of use. The active substance carbon sulphide has not yet been evaluated at Community level and it is not within the competence of the Commission to issue recommendations on its use. Imidacloprid, which is the active substance in the product Confidor, is currently being evaluated by the Commission and the Member States. Until the evaluation of the active substance is complete, the Commission cannot judge the efficacy of the product and it would, in any case, be the Member States that would have the responsibility of evaluating the product.

(1) OJ L 169, 10.7.2000. (2) OJ L 127, 9.5.2001. (3) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2001/C 364 E/209) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1724/01 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: Farmers in Europe

How many farmers are there in each of the applicant countries? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/193

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2001)

It is difficult to answer this question for the following raisons:

1) there is no common definition of ‘farmers’ and even the definition of ‘farm’ may vary greatly from one country to another;

2) the threshold adopted for the minimum size of farms has not yet been harmonised;

3) a clear picture will only be obtained when all applicant countries have carried out a full agricultural census, according to the Community methodology.

The following table gives an overview of the number of farms in candidate countries on the basis of the official figures that the Statistical Offices in the applicant countries have supplied to Eurostat. Employment in agriculture, as provided by the Labour Force Surveys, is also given for information. Although these figures for agricultural employment may differ from those provided by the agricultural census, they are more comparable as they are based on the same international standards.

Number of farms and employment in agriculture in Candidate countries

Farms (mostly exceeding Agricultural units Employment in agriculture Country a certain threshold and (incl. Household plots) (2nd quarter 2000) producing for the market) Bulgaria 1 800 000 (1) 360 000 n. a. Cyprus 55 000 52 000 15 000 Czech Republic 250 000 26 300 241 000 Estonia 380 000 19 900 40 000 Hungary 2 200 000 (2) 1 342 000 244 000 Latvia 313 000 123 000 137 000 Lithuania 470 000 75 000 277 000 Poland 3 060 000 (1) 2 000 000 2 698 000 Romania 4 600 000 n. a. 4 918 000 Slovakia 840 000 (3) 22 600 144 000 Slovenia 90 000 90 000 85 000

Source: Eurostat (1) rough estimate. (2) in 1991. (3) registered farms.

The second column of this table contains for most countries the total estimated number of units owing agricultural land, of which the largest part produces only for their own consumption. The third column consists of the estimated number of units that the applicant countries themselves consider to be agricultural farms according to their classification. The fourth column provides the number of economically active persons who gain a significant part of their income from agriculture, according to Labour Force Survey definitions, in the second quarter of the year 2000. Due the seasonal evolution of agricultural activity, figures on employment may vary throughout the year. C 364 E/194 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/210) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1742/01 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Air traffic

Since the creation of AENA (Spanish airports and air traffic), a public body established in 1990, all technical staff specialising in air traffic operations and services who are employed in air traffic services must have qualifications and a licence, in accordance with European rules (Eatchip I and II) and those of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). A document produced recently by the ICAO states explicitly that Spain is the only country that fails to comply with these rules. Is the Commission aware of this problem?

Given the danger to air traffic that a lack of appropriate training could represent, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the allegations raised by the Honourable Member’s communication but can inform that at present there are no Community wide provisions for the licensing/certification of Air Traffic Management (ATM) personnel.

Eurocontrol at its November 2000 meeting, adopted a Eurocontrol Safety Regulation Requirement (ESARR) on ATM Services’ Personnel requiring the Designated Authorities of the Member States of Eurocontrol, which include Spain, to ensure that all personnel responsible for tasks in the provision of air traffic services, which are considered to be related to the safety of air traffic, are competent to carry out those tasks and satisfy applicable medical fitness requirements. Such competencies shall be subject to appropriate measures to ensure their ongoing viability and recognised by an appropriate certification/ licensing system. These provisions are to become effective within three years from the date of adoption by Eurocontrol, i.e. November 2003.

The Commission is closely following the development and implementation of these requirements with a view to their transposition into Community law at some future date.

(2001/C 364 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1748/01 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Takeover of Hidrocantábrico by the Villar Mir and EnBW group

The takeover of Hidrocantábrico by the Villar Mir and EnBW group threatens to strengthen the dominant position jointly held in the electricity generation market on the Spanish mainland. As a result, effective competition in that market may be obstructed to a significant extent.

Furthermore, the reported takeover affects competition in regional and local markets for the distribution and marketing of electricity in which Hidrocantábrico is present. These markets present all the characteristics of a distinct market and do not represent a substantial part of the common market.

Does the Commission consider that, under Article 9(3)(b) of Regulation 4064/89 (1), the competent Spanish authorities should decide on the matter with a view to application of national legislation to protect competition, specifically Article 14 et seq. of Law 16/1989 of 17 July on the protection of competition and Royal Decree 1080/1992 which develops that law?

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/195

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

On 1 June 2001, the Commission has decided to undertake a full, second phase investigation of the proposed acquisition of joint control over Spanish utility Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico S.A. (Hidrocant- ábrico) by Spanish Group Villar Mir and Energie Baden-Württemberg (EnBW). The Commission considers that the proposed operation raises serious doubts, as it could consolidate the existing collective dominant position in the Spanish electricity market. It will also examine the extent to which the dominant position of Electricité de France (EdF), which jointly controls EnBW, could be strengthened. The Spanish government has asked referral of the case, but as the Commission is starting an in-depth probe, according to article 9 of the Merger Regulation (1) it does not need to take a decision on the request made by the national authorities at this stage of the procedure.

The Commission has from the date it decided to open a second phase investigation, a maximum of four months to reach a final decision.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989, on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395, 30.12.1989), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 (OJ L 180, 9.7.1997).

(2001/C 364 E/212) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1751/01 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Aid for dried fruit

Agriculture plays only a small part in economic activity on the island of Majorca. Nevertheless, agriculture is a key element in its social structure and in regional planning and environmental protection policy on the island.

Dried fruit accounts for the bulk of agricultural production in Majorca, and the reduction or abolition of European Union aid would therefore deal a heavy blow to social cohesion on the island, since virtually all farming activity would disappear and farms would be abandoned.

1. What is the Commission’s policy on dried fruit?

2. Will aid policy for dried fruit be continued?

3. Will the Commission draw a distinction between possible types of aid in line with their social impact in the various areas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

1. The policy of the Commission on nuts (almonds, hazelnuts, walnuts, pistachios and carobs) since 1989 has been to support the nut sector through specific and temporary measures. In this context, specific aid has been granted to the nut sector for 10 years under the provisions of Title IIa of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (1) (improvement plans). The aim of the measure has been essentially to improve productivity and competitiveness.

A temporary specific flat-rate aid for hazelnuts was granted between 1997 and 2000. C 364 E/196 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

2. Community expenditure from 1990 to 2000 was over € 800 million. Further expenditure of nearly € 200 million is foreseen until 2006 for improvement plans still in operation. In addition to this, producer organisations whose improvement plans were approved in 1990 were able to request continued financing of their plans for up to one year.

However such specific aid was always intended to be temporary and digressive, in order to allow a shift of financial responsibility on to the growers. On this basis, the Commission considers that a prolongation of improvement plans to provide economic support for the sector is not the most appropriate method to address this issue. The issue of nuts therefore has to be looked at in a wider context.

As for all other products in the fruit and vegetable sector, aid is available for nuts through the operational fund scheme of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (2), which provides financial support for all fruit and vegetables marketed through producer organisations.

3. Finally, taking into account environmental and social aspects of nut production, Member States can of course include nuts in their rural development plans under the conditions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (3).

(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972. (2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996. (3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 364 E/213) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1754/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Electricity from renewable sources in the Netherlands

No fewer than 40 % of households in the Netherlands are considering switching to electricity from renewable sources. As from 1 July 2001, consumers in the Netherlands will be able to select their own supplier of renewable (‘green’) electricity, no matter where they live. Essent BV is already offering green electricity at prices which undercut those of electricity from non-renewable sources. The price differential has been made possible by the Regulatory Energy Tax, which is not levied on green electricity. In order to meet the rapidly growing demand, Dutch suppliers wish to buy in green electricity from abroad.

The Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs wishes to limit imports of green electricity because it fears the loss of revenue from the Regulatory Energy Tax if large numbers of people switch to green electricity. The sum at stake is said to be € 1,8 billion (NLG 4 billion).

The Regulatory Energy Tax (commonly referred to as the EcoTax) was introduced with the aim of curbing energy consumption and encouraging consumers to switch to green electricity. The revenue is intended to enable income tax to be cut and labour made cheaper in relation to energy.

Surely this is a senseless turn of events?

To what extent are the plans of the Ministry of Economic Affairs incompatible with the liberalisation of the energy market? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/197

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission always felt that the changing circumstances due to liberalisation of Community’s energy markets had to be reflected in a European framework for the promotion of electricity renewable energy sources within the internal market. With the recent agreement by Council and Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Directive on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, this framework will soon be in place and will give a positive impetus to the situation of electricity from renewable energy sources.

Concerning the Dutch situation, at the moment, around half a million customers have decided to switch to green electricity in the Netherlands. They can either switch supplier or stay with their current electricity supplier. The demand of the customers that have chosen for green electricity at this moment equals more or less the percentage of current production of green electricity in the Netherlands.

Imports of renewable generated electricity into the Netherlands are allowed until 1 January 2002, under the conditions that also count for Dutch produced green electricity, meaning that they benefit from an exemption from the regulating energy tax (REB). The Dutch authorities are not in any way considering closing the borders for green electricity. On the contrary, if demand for green electricity keeps growing, imports will need to play an important role.

The Dutch authorities are now considering the options for dealing with the issue of imported green electricity from 2002 onwards. As soon as clarity has been provided by the Dutch authorities in this matter, the Commission will inform the Honourable Member of the details.

(2001/C 364 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1755/01 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) and Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Mussel beds in the German part of the Waddenzee

The German Fisheries Department has granted a German company a licence to harvest mussels from a young mussel bed near Delfzijl in the Netherlands. The area in question has been designated a special conservation area under the Directives on Wild Birds and Habitats. In recent years a number of mussel beds in the Waddenzee have disappeared. The current policy of the Netherlands Government is geared to restoring the mussel beds. The oystercatcher and eiderduck populations have recently declined substan- tially. Both oystercatchers and eiderduck feed on cockles and mussels.

1. Could the harvesting of mussels result in irreparable damage or damage which can only be remedied with difficulty (significant damage) to the mussel beds?

2. Could the harvesting of mussels be a threat to oystercatchers and eiderduck?

3. Are there strong reasons of public interest in favour of granting a licence despite the possibility of significant damage?

4. Does the licence contravene the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives?

5. How compatible is the licence with the principles of the biodiversity policy laid down in the action plan for biodiversity for fisheries? C 364 E/198 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

6. What will the Commission do in the near future to protect mussel beds?

7. What is the Commission’s assessment of the German Government’s plans to quarry sand close to a number of islands used by birds and to construct a container port in the Ems-Dollard area?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission has already launched an investigation in order to assess the compatibility of the shellfish fisheries in the Wadden Sea and in the wide mouth of the river Ems with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). The granting of a licence to harvest mussels close to Delfzijl in the Netherlands is one of the subjects of that investigation.

As far as the German Government’s plans to quarry sand and to construct a port in the Ems-Dollard area are concerned, the Commission so far has no detailed knowledge of this matter and has no indications that an infringement of Community law is at issue.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 364 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1757/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Support for olive-growers affected by inclement weather in Portugal

The inclement weather which has affected Portugal has had serious consequences for certain forms of agricultural production, especially in the olive sector. In that sector production for the last marketing year fell by 60-70 %, above all in the Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro region, which was declared a disaster zone by the Portuguese government.

In the meantime, the farmers, the majority of whom are small producers, have received no support in the form of subsidies. The government has merely opened a special credit facility, despite the enormous damage caused by the fall in production in an area highly dependent on olive-growing.

This means that the farmers have received neither the income from their lost production nor the production subsidies which had been promised in the budget. Their plight is such that some may be obliged to abandon cultivation in order to survive.

It is therefore essential that compensation be paid to olive growers in this region, on the basis of at least 50 % of average annual production over the last three years as declared to the INGA (the National Institute for Agricultural Intervention and Guarantees).

Can the Commission provide information on its position concerning compensation for the Portuguese olive-growers affected by the inclement weather, given the prior existence of budget lines for the payment of production subsidies which were not actually granted and the fact that Portugal is a net contributor to the CAP?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission has no financial instrument that allows it to grant compensatory aid to farmers suffering production losses as a result of bad weather. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/199

The Commission is, however, willing to consider national aid, provided it complies with the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (1).

(1) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000.

(2001/C 364 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1758/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Discrimination in access to civil service posts

On 3 November 1999 the Portuguese government published Decree-Law No 444/99 adopting the professional statute for the personnel of the external services of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (embassies and consulates).

This statute gives employees of those services the right to opt for national civil servant status. However, it denies that option to employees who are not Portuguese nationals, even where they are citizens of other EU Member States. This creates situations of unequal treatment.

Can the Commission state whether this situation is in breach of ECJ case-law and of the EC Treaty, notably its Article 13?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

According to Article 39 (ex Article 48) of the EC Treaty, Community nationals have a right to freedom of movement for workers within the territory of the Union. Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty provides that the provisions of this Article shall not apply to employment in the public service. However, the Court of Justice (CJ) has interpreted this reservation very strictly. In its constant interpretation the CJ has clarified that Member States are authorised to reserve public service posts for their nationals only if they are directly related to the specific activities of the public service, namely those involving the exercise of public authority and the responsibility for safeguarding the general interest of the Member State including those of public bodies such as local authorities. According to the ‘Commission action in respect of the application of Article 48(4) (now 39(4)) of the EC-Treaty’ (1) the staff of the diplomatic service may fall under this reservation.

The authorities of the Member States (including the courts), under the control of the CJ, have to decide in each individual case if the criteria for applying Article 39(4) are really fulfilled; this has to be done according to the specific tasks and responsibilities of the post in question.

If the Portuguese authorities decide that a specific post in the diplomatic corps does not fulfil the criteria of Article 39(4) and therefore open this post to Union nationals who have exercised their right to free movement they may not deny them the right to opt for national civil servant status. This denial would be a discrimination based on nationality as regards any conditions of employment and work which is prohibited according to Article 39(2) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 of the Council on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (2). The CJ has ruled that Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty cannot justify discriminatory measures with regard to remuneration or other conditions of employment against workers once they have been admitted to the public service (see judgment of the CJ of 12 February 1974 in Case 152/73 (Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v. Deutsche Bundespost)) (3).

Finally, it should be noted that discrimination on grounds of nationality is not covered by Article 13 (ex Article 6a) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ C 72, 18.3.1988. (2) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968. (3) ECR 1974, p. 153. C 364 E/200 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/217) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1762/01

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Meat imports

Can the Commission confirm whether there are any EU regulations that prohibit the importation of meat from Australia and/or New Zealand into the UK, or any other EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

In brief, meat from Australia and New Zealand can be imported into the Community provided it complies with the relevant veterinary health requirements.

In relation to animal and public health conditions, import rules have been laid down by the Commission in conformity with Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat from third countries (1). As both countries fulfil certain animal health requirements, Australia and New Zealand are listed in Council Decision 79/542/EEC of 21 December 1976 drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorize imports of bovine animals, swine and fresh meat (2) as countries authorised to export fresh meat to the Community. Harmonised animal health certification has been laid down in Commission Decisions 80/801/EEC of 25 July 1980 concerning animal health conditions and veterinary certification for the importation of fresh meat from Australia (3) and 80/805/EEC of 25 July 1980 concerning animal health conditions and veterinary certification for the importation of fresh meat from New Zealand (4).

In relation to public health, requirements have to be certified according to Annex A of Directive 72/462/ EEC which includes guarantees that the meat originates from animals that have not been treated with substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action nor with beta-agonists (in conformity with Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of ß-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/ EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (5)). In addition in order to export food of animal origin to the Community a third country must be included in the list of countries for which residue plans have been provisionally approved under Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/ 358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (5).

Establishments (slaughterhouses, cutting plants, etc.) are also listed in Community legislation.

For information, each of these countries benefit from a number of import tariff quotas covering certain quantities and types of meat to be imported at reduced or zero customs duties.

(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972. (2) OJ L 146, 14.6.1979. (3) OJ L 234, 5.9.1980. (4) OJ L 236, 9.9.1980. (5) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/201

(2001/C 364 E/218) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1769/01 by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: The electronic market and the safeguarding of designations of origin

Globalisation and electronic commerce are threatening intellectual property and designations of ‘typical’ products to such an extent that they must be protected without delay. Typical Italian products are under threat in that imitations of ‘regional’ products are being traded in an uncontrolled and unrestricted way on the Net.

Rules are needed to put a stop to all wrongful commercial practices which are distorting international competition, deceiving consumers and damaging producers. The Court of Justice decision expected on 6 June may prove decisive for the future of products such as Parmesan, Parma ham, Gorgonzola, wines and olive oil.

These attacks on typical products come at a time when revision of the common agricultural policy is being debated and they are favouring products of suspect origin and dubious quality. What will the Commission do to ensure implementation of standards capable of safeguarding the lawful trade in agri-foodstuff products of specific quality and to protect the SMEs and small producers working in these sectors?

Why is Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (1) (framework law protecting consumers from wrongful trading and producers from misappropriation of product names, and safeguarding designations of origin and geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs at Community level) which was referred to in the Commission’s answer to a previous question (P-0724/01 (2)) not being applied? Is it perhaps inadequate?

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1. (2) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 240.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 lays down the rules for the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.

As already stated in the answer to Written Question E-794/01 by Mr Vinci and Mr Bertinotti (1), the registration under this Regulation gives producers an exclusive right to use the registered name for their products. This is an industrial property right.

The basic feature of the exclusive right is thus that other people than the producers concerned are not allowed to use the name. Article 13 of the Regulation establishes the exact significance of the term ‘use’, and sets out the powers available to holders of the right. These powers are extensive. The prohibition covers all practices that refer in any way at all to a protected geographical indication so as to take unjustified advantage of its reputation. The Regulation thus durably strengthens the position of the producers entitled to use the registered name for their products.

The Regulation specifically prohibits the following practices:

 any direct or indirect commercial use of a name registered in respect of products not covered by the registration in so far as those products are comparable to the products registered under that name or insofar as using the name exploits the reputation of the protected name;

 any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated or if the protected name is translated or accompanied by an expression such as ‘style’, ‘type’, ‘method’, ‘as produced in’, ‘imitation’ or similar; C 364 E/202 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

 any other false or misleading indication as to the provenance, origin, nature or essential qualities of the product, on the inner or outer packaging, advertising material or documents relating to the product concerned, and the packing of the product in a container liable to convey a false impression as to its origin;

 any other practice liable to mislead the public as to the true origin of the product.

However, to enable manufacturers to adjust to these rules, the Regulation provides for transitional arrangements in cases expressly provided: Member States may maintain national systems that permit the use of names registered under the simplified procedure for a period of not more than five years after the date of publication of the Registration. A transitional period may also be awarded, under certain conditions, for names registered under the ordinary procedure. This is the reason why the use of certain designations has been in certain cases transitory admitted for products not complying with the registered product specification.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 certainly lays down a well-structured and solid legal framework to guarantee producers from abuse and unfair appropriation.

Obviously, no guarantee can be valid unless there is an inspection system. The Regulation provides that Member States are responsible for the inspections, where they have some leeway to organise their own systems. However, Article 10 is related only to the control of the registered denominations and do not deal with illegal uses of these denominations. Enforcing the property rights awarded under the Regulation is under the responsibility of the Member States and national courts may decide on any infringement of these property rights.

The protection granted by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 only applies at Community level, except in case of bilateral or multilateral agreements.

In addition, the Commission has been actively involved in promoting discussions on how to improve the already existing level of protection available to geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs under the trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) Agreement.

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 37.

(2001/C 364 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1774/01 by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: German packaging regulation  discrimination against drinks containers

The current German packaging regulation provides for a compulsory deposit on containers for certain drinks, which becomes effective if the percentage of refillable containers used for a particular drink falls below 72 %. A far lower threshold of 20 % is applied to milk. Despite the longstanding misgivings about the German provisions, Germany announced an amended regulation, introducing the hitherto threatened compulsory deposit, irrespective of the refillable container quota. The exceptions are refillable containers, plasticised cardboard cartons and polythene plastic bags for milk, which are regarded as environmentally acceptable. Milk and wine are exempt from the deposit de jure, regardless of whether they are sold in (allegedly) environmentally unacceptable or acceptable containers. The message from the legislator to the consumer, therefore, is that wine in glass bottles is good whereas fruit juice in glass bottles is bad.

Under what circumstances, does the Commission consider the exceptions (different refillable container quotas; compulsory deposit only for certain drinks) to be non-discriminatory?

Does the Commission consider refillable container quotas and compulsory deposits on drinks containers to be discriminatory under certain circumstances compared with other waste packaging, particularly in view of the fact that drinks containers make up only a small percentage of waste packaging as a whole and of residual waste? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/203

(2001/C 364 E/220) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1775/01 by Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: German packaging regulation  inadequate protection for free movement of goods and drinks importers

The amended version of the German packaging regulation provides for a compulsory deposit on containers for certain drinks. This will de facto reinforce a barrier to trade for foreign drinks importers which has existed for more than ten years.

This and similar cases demonstrate that the principle of free movement of goods  which is enshrined together with the principle of environmental protection in Directive 94/62/EC (1) and is equally important  is not effectively safeguarded. Effective protection also calls for prompt enforcement and implemen- tation. Deliberations over regulatory provisions and the introduction of a procedure  e.g. in the case of the related Danish ban on cans  usually took several years hitherto, whereas compulsory deposit may drive a drinks importer out of business within a few months.

Does the Commission consider that this principle has been adequately upheld in the light of the duration of the deliberations and the procedure so far?

Does the Commission take the view in the light of experience to date that packaging Directive 94/62 is effective as legislation in preventing barriers to trade?

Will the Commission, in revising Directive 94/62, provide for measures to guarantee effectively and promptly the operation of the internal market as well as a high level of environmental protection?

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

(2001/C 364 E/221) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1776/01 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: German packaging regulation  trade barrier for drinks importers

The current German packaging regulation provides for a compulsory deposit on containers for certain drinks (beer, soft drinks, mineral water, fruit and vegetable juices, wine), which becomes effective if the percentage of refillable containers used for a particular drink falls below 72 %.

It was only in January 2001 that the Commission decided  after years of deliberation  to bring an action against Germany in the European Court of Justice in response to the refillable container quota and the threat of a compulsory deposit. Those provisions represent a barrier to trade, particularly for foreign mineral waters. Neither is the compulsory deposit commensurate with the objective of environmental protection. The stated objective is to promote refillable containers, albeit at enormous and unreasonable cost which the consumer will ultimately have to bear. This objective, as numerous studies indicate is more hindered than helped by the proposed provisions. Despite the longstanding misgivings about the German provisions, which go back to 1991, Germany announced in March 2001 an amendment to the packaging regulation, definitively introducing the compulsory deposit, which had hitherto been a mere threat.

What measures does the Commission intend to take if the compulsory deposit is adopted?

What does the Commission intend to do to guarantee, promptly, efficiently and effectively, the free movement of goods in the light of the impending introduction of the new provisions?

What are the Commission’s options in this respect? C 364 E/204 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/222) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1777/01 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Threat of trade barrier to drinks industry shipments to Germany

The proposal for a second regulation amending the German packaging regulation provides for the introduction of a compulsory minimum deposit for disposable drinks containers.

Of the products sold, the proportion of disposable drinks containers among imported drinks is much higher than among drinks produced domestically. A deposit on cans and non-returnable bottles therefore constitutes a disadvantage for drinks companies exporting to Germany.

Drinks manufacturers are already extremely concerned that the introduction of a deposit on cans and non- returnable bottles would prompt customers in Germany (particularly marketing chains) to stop stocking their products in disposable containers.

In addition, because of the plans to introduce a deposit system for the German market, drinks suppliers would have to set up separate production and distribution facilities which would result in additional costs and a competitive disadvantage.

The introduction of a compulsory deposit cannot be justified on ecological or environmental grounds as it is not conducive to achieving the desired objective, i.e. promoting the use of refillable containers, and because there are insufficient scientific grounds for considering that the non-returnable containers covered by the regulation are environmentally unsound.

What is the Commission’s position on this threat to meddle with the principle of the free movement of goods, which creates a barrier to trade on the European internal market, and which cannot be justified either on the basis of environmental arguments or current Community legislation?

(2001/C 364 E/223) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1823/01 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(20 June 2001)

Subject: Introduction of compulsory deposit on disposable packaging in Germany

In Germany consideration is being given to changing German packaging regulations so as to introduce a compulsory deposit on disposable drinks containers.

Does the Commission consider that this arrangement is really necessary on environment policy grounds? Is the Commission aware that other recovery techniques, in particular thermal recovery, can guarantee at least as high a standard of environmental protection?

Does the Commission see this national measure as a restriction on the freedom of movement of goods within the meaning of Article 28 of the EC Treaty?

Is the Commission aware that the effect of Directive 94/62 (1) was to introduce full harmonisation of packaging rules and regulations for the whole of Europe and that any departure from its provisions would only be possible in accordance with Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty, and then only if ‘based on new scientific evidence’ and the existence of ‘a problem specific to that Member State’, which obviously does not apply in this case?

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/205

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1774/01, E-1775/01, E-1776/01, E-1777/01 and P-1823/01 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (26 July 2001)

The draft second amendment to the German regulation on packaging  notification of which was given in connection with Directives 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (1) and 98/ 34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (2)  was examined by the Commission in the light of the relevant provisions of Community law.

The points mentioned by the honourable Member were also considered by the relevant departments of the Commission.

In view of the fact that at its meeting of 13 July 2001 the Bundesrat accepted a proposal for a resolution put forward jointly by several Länder and did not vote in favour of the draft as notified to the Commission, the issue of the proposed draft’s compatibility with Community law no longer arises.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. (2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2001/C 364 E/224) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1780/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission (15 June 2001)

Subject: Drugs cooperation with Latin America

Six years after it was set up the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), which has been thoroughly overhauled as regards both its objectives and its working methods, provides a proper integrated system for information on drugs and the drug policies conducted in the various EU Member States.

The Monitoring Centre is needed not only by the countries applying for EU membership but also by other third countries as a reliable source of knowledge and experience relating to such matters. Although it has been able to meet this need in the case of the applicant countries ever since its statute was suitably amended and the necessary human resources were made available to it under the PHARE programme, the same cannot be said in the case of other third countries and, in particular, those of Latin America, a part of the world for which drugs-related information is one of the priority areas of cooperation with the EU. The EMCDDA has neither the legal means nor the resources it requires in order to be able to meet this need and cooperate directly with Latin America.

Would the Commission therefore provide the following items: 1. A list of the Latin American, African and Asian countries which have requested cooperation with the EU as regards drugs-related information, with a view to setting up national and/or regional drug- monitoring centres. 2. A list and a description of the projects which the Commission is planning to implement in this field and of the resources allocated to the implementation of those projects. 3. A list of the EU entities selected by the Commission for the purpose of implementing the projects and information regarding the way in which they have been selected, the criteria used, etc.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (1 August 2001)

The Commission would refer to its answer to the Honourable Member’s question on cooperation with Latin America in the field of drugs, in particular with regard to the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction (P-1768/01) (1). C 364 E/206 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

To date, only Venezuela has asked to benefit from European cooperation on information on drugs.

Only one monitoring project is being developed in a non-candidate third country. This is the monitoring centre in Venezuela for which the Commission will provide a grant of €1 950 000.

The list of European bodies selected by the Commission for carrying out this project has not yet been drawn up and the implementing arrangements have still to finalised between the Venezuelan government and the Commission.

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 223.

(2001/C 364 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1781/01 by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Request for further information concerning the construction of an industrial estate in a special bird protection area in San Fernando de Henares (Spain)

In its reply of 8 May 2001 to my Written Question E-0882/01 (1) concerning the construction of an industrial estate on a site set aside as ZEPA (special bird protection area) 142 in San Fernando de Henares (Spain), the Commission said that, on the basis of the complaint submitted, it had asked the Spanish authorities for their comments on the matter and had requested from them a copy of the impact assessment carried out in respect of the project and a detailed description of the types of habitat to be found in the area. The Commission also stated that it would make sure that the relevant Community legislation was complied with.

Has the Commission received the information it requested?

If so, what view does it take of the matter in the light of that information? What action has it taken (or is it intending to take) as a consequence?

If not, will it urge the Spanish authorities to make the documents requested available as quickly as possible?

(1) JO C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 115.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

As it indicated in its answer to Written Question E-0882/01 (1) by the Honourable Member, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities to comment on the application of the Community environmental legislation which may apply in this instance.

The Spanish authorities’ reply has just been received and is now being examined. It would therefore be premature to make a judgment regarding any improper application of Community law in this particular case.

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 115. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/207

(2001/C 364 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1791/01 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission (19 June 2001)

Subject: Complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights

In 1996, Mr Mario Rainaldi lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights. That complaint was received by the secretariat on 8 August 1996 and recorded under the number 33698/96 on 7 November 1996.

Given that almost five years have gone by since then, and that Mr Rainaldi’s lawyer, Andrea Martire, not only sent a registered letter on 27 October 2000, politely asking for news of the complaint, but has also repeatedly telephoned the secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights, can the Commission say: 1. how such a situation has come about; 2. why no action has yet been taken on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (31 July 2001)

It is not for the Commission to express an opinion on a matter concerning a Council of Europe organisation based in Strasbourg.

With the entry into force of Protocol No 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Commission of Human Rights was dissolved. The Honourable Member should accordingly seek a reply to her questions from the European Court of Human Rights (1).

(1) European Court of Human Rights, The Council of Europe, F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex.

(2001/C 364 E/227) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1792/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 June 2001)

Subject: Current system of car taxation and its inconsistency with the internal market and free trade

In its answer to Question E-3519/00 (1), the Council accepts that it is empowered to act with regard to the harmonisation of indirect taxation, to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market. However, to do so, the Council continues, it must receive a proposal from the Commission, which it has not yet received. In its work programme for 2001, the Commission announced that it intended to submit this year a communication on the taxation of vehicles in the European Union.

Can the Commission provide information, even in broad terms, about the general guidelines for tackling this problem provided for in the above communication? Does it intend to go further by drawing up a legally binding proposal?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 5.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (17 July 2001)

As the Honourable Member is aware, there is little Community legislation, or harmonisation of national fiscal provisions, applied by the Member States in the area of vehicle taxation. Existing harmonisation C 364 E/208 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

concerns two Council Directives, adopted in 1983: Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983, concerning tax exemptions for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (1), and Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983, concerning tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from one Member State to another of the personal property of individuals (1), including passenger cars. Approximation of vehicle taxation levels has proven very difficult to achieve due to the unanimity rule required for decisions on fiscal matters.

The Commission presented a Proposal for a Council Directive (2) in 1998, with the overall objective of bringing the tax treatment of vehicles, which accompany private individuals moving from one Member State to another, more in line with the concept and principles of the single Market. The Proposal also intended to update the provisions of the two Council Directives mentioned above and to repeal and replace them by a single, consolidated Directive. Situations such as double payment of registration tax, or payment of excessive amounts of vehicle taxes, which have been the subject of repeated complaints by citizens or of judgements by the Court of Justice were also addressed in this Proposal. Member States only discussed the Proposal once, in February 1999, and it remains on the Council’s table. The Parliament gave its favourable opinion on the Proposal in June 1999.

The Commission intends to present a Communication on vehicle taxation before the end of this year, or early in 2002. This will launch a discussion, with Member States and other Community Institutions, on future options for action at Community and national levels. The Commission will wait until the outcome of this discussion is known, before taking any initiative in the area of vehicle taxation. The Communication will, therefore, not be accompanied by any legal proposal.

Concerning the general guidelines of the Communication, the Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that they will address specific fiscal and environmental aspects of vehicle taxation. Other vehicle taxation related issues, such as double payment, or non-refund, of registration tax paid when private motor vehicles are moved permanently to another Member State and the orientations taken by the Court of Justice in its jurisprudence, will be taken into account.

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983. (2) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.

(2001/C 364 E/228) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1796/01 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Licensing of radio stations and measures to guarantee pluralism regarding the mass media

The Greek Government has adopted legislation regarding the licensing of radio stations on the basis of questionable studies, with the result that, on grounds of public policy, licences have been issued for only 28 wavebands and withheld from radio stations enjoying high ratings. This has resulted in a stalemate and has proved particularly harmful to a large number of radio stations, to say nothing of infringing the principle of free and pluralist mass media and Article 6 of the TEU.

According to the findings of a specialist working party which were submitted to the Greek parliament, it is possible for 39 wavebands to operate in Attiki. Accordingly the Greek Government was acting illegally by failing to respect the democratic and social rights of the Greek public.

In view of this selective licensing of radio stations and the flagrant violation of fundamental rights which has occurred:

1. Are not the Member States expressly required to ensure respect for, and protection of the above principles, in particular that of media plurality? To what extent is this really being achieved in the light of developments such as the above? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/209

2. Have steps been taken to ensure that Greek framework legislation regarding broadcasting is in line with Community legislation and the provisions of the Treaties? 3. What action will the Commission take to bring to an end the illegal tactics being followed by the national broadcasting authority in revoking licences and undermining media plurality?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

The Commission recently received a complaint regarding the system of licensing of radio stations in the Attica basin. The Commission is in the course of examining this complaint and has asked the Greek authorities to provide them with additional information. Since the case presents a rather complex situation, it is too early to say yet whether the actions taken by the Greek government are consistent or not with European law. The Commission attaches great importance to the creation of a single broadcasting market within the Community and will pay due attention to this case.

(2001/C 364 E/229) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1800/01 by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Scientific studies into the unintentional catching of marine mammals

Every year, the general public becomes incensed when it sees dolphins stranded on European beaches. Most times, if not every time, their demise is caused by the use of pelagic trawls.

Figures abound: some people speak of thousands of dolphins stranded every year, 80 % of which present injuries caused by pelagic trawls.

Have any scientific studies been drawn up which would confirm those figures? If not, does the Commission intend to commission such studies and finance them?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

The Commission is well aware of the problem of incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries activities. Indeed, the Commission has financially supported several research projects and studies, tackling the issue of interaction among marine mammals (mainly cetaceans) and fishing activities, which led to illumination of the perceived problems.

Nonetheless, the Commission is unable to find any authoritative text which indicates that 80 % of stranded dolphins have been caused by pelagic trawl. If, however, such a reference exists the Commission would be grateful to be made aware of it.

The Commission is always open to support scientific investigation that could further enlighten the matter. In particular, research proposals on cetaceans, provided that the science is good, could be eligible within the Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources Programme, key action 5 ‘Sustainable Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and Integrated Development of Rural Areas including Mountain Areas’, of the Fifth framework programme for Research and Technological Development of the Community (http:// www.cordis.lu/life/). The deadline for last call for proposals is 18 October 2001.

Research proposals in relation to marine biodiversity loss, including cetaceans, could also be considered within the Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Programme, key action 3 ‘Sustainable Maríne Ecosystems’ as well as within the Infrastructure action line of the same Programme (Environment and Sustainable development)(http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/src/calls.htm). C 364 E/210 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/230) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1801/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Increase in the incidence of depression among the elderly

Studies carried out by the Institute of Psychiatry and Psychology at the Università Cattolica in Rome have shown that seven out of ten elderly people living in old-age homes suffer from depression.

Given that it has now been established that this is a genuine illness, while average life expectancy is increasing in Europe, can the Commission state whether:

1. it is aware of the findings of these studies;

2. it has had research carried out into this illness and, if so, can provide details of the findings;

3. it has established contacts with the relevant government departments in the Member States with a view to exploring possible synergies in action to deal with this new emergency;

4. the same methods are used for the treatment of this illness in old-age homes in the various EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

1. The Commission is not aware of any specific study carried through by the Institute of Psychiatry and Psychology in Rome on this issue. However, it is very much concerned by the burden of mental ill-health and of depression in particular. Unfortunately, the available data and especially the comparable data are very limited in this area. This is why an European expert group is currently working under the health monitoring programme on establishing a set of mental health indicators in order to better assess mental health and its determinants in the future. Moreover, one of the next health status reports of the Community will specifically be looking at mental health, the preliminary work for it being in progress.

So far, the data indicates that between 15 and 20 % of adults are suffering from some form of mental problem, depression being one of the most common. The elderly population is clearly a risk group and due to the ageing of the European population, its importance will increase in the coming years. More research is definitively needed on risk factors, prevention, recognition, treatment and care of mental ill- health.

2. The Fifth framework programme of the Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998 to 2002) has a specific Key Action on Ageing Population. This key action ‘aims to (…) extend the quality of life and independence of older people, and to reduce the need for long- term care …’

Priority areas in the call for proposals of the 2001 Work Programme include, among others, ‘nervous system: stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of cognitive impairment, depression, Parkinson’s disease and peripheral neuropathies’.

The Commission has until now funded many projects dealing directly or indirectly with depression in old age: detection, treatment and geographical variation; prevention in urban and rural settings; functional and molecular mechanisms; nutritional and lifestyle factors; novel methods of analysis; home environment as determinant of healthy ageing; integrated health and social care …

In concordance with its interest for research on depression, the Commission is also planning to include research on depression in ageing population as a priority in the 2002 Work Programme, to be published later this year. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/211

3. Under the health promotion programme the Commission has initiated the establishment of different European networks which involve the key players in the field. Following the last call for proposals a project of a consortium of 4 different networks had received a positive evaluation for funding, to carry out a pan European project on the development of coping and prevention strategies in relation to depression. One major target group will be elderly people. Although this project has not yet started the Commission can already confirm that there is an infrastructure in place that comprises all Member States and World health organisation (WHO) to tackle this issue.

4. The EC Treaty underlines that the organisation and delivery of health services and of medical care are the sole responsibility of the Member States. In practice, this means that it is up to the individual Member States to take the appropriate measures in order to anssure that a range of suitable diagnostic procedures and types of therapy are available for patients, and to decide on the conditions under which these services are accessible. For this reason, the Community is not in a position to comment on the treatment of depression of elderly in old-ages homes in the Member States.

(2001/C 364 E/231) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Olympic boxing arena

The plan to site the Olympic boxing arena on public sports facilities in Palaio Faliro has provoked a storm of protest in Greece. The Coordinating Committee of the campaign to save the coastline of the Saronic Gulf claims that the new arena will cover an area of 1,5-2 hectares. Locating the boxing arena on the site of the existing sports facilities will also deprive 3 000 children of the chance to pursue sporting activities, while all the indications are that the arena, which was originally presented as being temporary, will be permanent.

In the light of the above complaints, will the Commission say to what extent environmental feasibility studies have been drawn up for this project?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission has no information regarding the project to build the Olympic boxing arena in Palaio Faliro, as reported by the Honourable Member. However, in order that it might examine the dossier, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to provide it with more specific information on the project in question, including a description of the project as approved, or in the course of being approved, and of any adverse effect it might have on the environment.

(2001/C 364 E/232) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1814/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 June 2001)

Subject: Water shortage on the Aegean islands

The Aegean islands, particularly the Cyclades, are suffering from a severe shortage of water. According to scientific studies, the Cyclades require 12 million cubic metres of drinking water a year, only 60-65 % of which is supplied, while demand is expected to double by 2030. The problem is particularly acute during the summer owing to the complete lack of rainfall and the several-fold increase in the population through tourism. At the same time, the proliferation of deep boreholes for drawing water has resulted in dangerous salinization of the groundwater. C 364 E/212 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Given that many observers (the local press, the Institute of Geological and Mineral Research, etc.) have noted serious deficiencies in water storage projects, what are the Commission’s views on those projects, which have been funded under the 1st and 2nd Community Support frameworks, and what action has it taken?

What steps have been taken to focus on the water shortage problem as a matter of priority under the 3rd CSF? What measures have been taken on which islands and what schedules have been drawn up?

The European Union is funding a management study for the development of water resources on the Aegean islands which is due for completion in the autumn of 2001. Will the findings of that study be used in the 3rd CSF, particularly to develop various methods of dealing with the water shortage (dams/ reservoirs, limits and techniques for boreholes, traditional tanks for collecting rainwater on a small scale, desalination, conveyance of water, etc.)?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The Commission is aware of the importance of the problem of water for the islands of the Aegean Sea. It therefore part-financed a series of works to collect surface water under the Community support frameworks (CSFs) for 1989-1993 and 1994-1999.

The Commission was informed that some of these projects were subject to technical delays and/or problems and therefore carried out a study on 26 projects of this type (small dams and small artificial lakes or ‘hill catchments’). It sent the conclusions of this study to the regional authorities of the Southern and Northern Aegean on 12 November 1998, asking them to take the measures required to complete the projects and use the water so collected. The Commission also informed these authorities that, if some of these projects were not completed and brought into operation, it would recover the Community contribution to their construction. The Commission recently sent a reminder letter to these authorities and to the Greek national Ministry for Economic Affairs.

The Commission considers that the problem of water in Greece stems mainly from the way this resource is managed. This is why, when negotiating the current CSF (2000-06), it insisted to the Greek authorities that water management should have an important place, although, of course, the choice of projects is a matter for them.

According to the information sent to the Commission, a study has been launched on the management of water resources on the Cyclades (not all the islands). Programming for Greece of the Interreg IIC Community Initiative ‘Drought’ includes provision for this and other studies. Responsibility for completion of these studies and the use made of the results is a matter for the Member State.

(2001/C 364 E/233) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1818/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Commission Ispra Joint Research Centre (Italy)

For some time the Commission has been pursuing a rather ambiguous policy towards the Ispra research centre and quietly shifting some of its activities and hence personnel to other Union research sites not due to be expanded in the near future (for example the Petten centre). 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/213

According to an unofficial report, the Director-General of the Ispra centre announced to the research staff last week that one of the four institutes operating at Ispra was to be closed.

1. Can the Commission confirm the report?

2. If so, is the closure to be interpreted as a move towards possible future conversion, reorganisation, or the breakup of the Ispra centre?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

The Joint Research Centre’s (JRC) Ispra site currently comprises four Institutes: Environment (EI), Space Applications (SAI), Health and Consumer Protection (IHCP) and Systems, Informatics and Safety (ISIS).

An independent assessment panel concluded that there was a ‘substantial overlap’ between the activities of SAI, and those of EI and ISIS. These findings are confirmed by an internal audit carried out within the JRC.

Moreover, the objectives of SAI are technology focussed, whereas the other Institutes have clear links to Community policies.

The Commission will therefore re-organise these three Institutes into two new ones that will be identified with policy objectives rather than a particular technology.

One institute will be a focus for activities whose main objective is to maintain Europe’s increasingly vulnerable environment  both by supporting Community environmental policies and by supporting the integration of an environmental component into other policies. Emphasis will be given to supporting the strategy for sustainable development.

The other institute will aim to provide better protection of the security of the individual, the taxpayer and, increasingly, the consumer.

The principle of these changes has been explained to the staff that will be involved in the re-organisation.

These changes are part of a wider initiative to focus and concentrate more the JRC’s activities on the key priorities linked to its mission in support of Community policies. They are designed to ensure that the JRC has a sustainable future, integrated into the European Research Area. There are therefore no plans for the breakup of the Ispra centre.

(2001/C 364 E/234) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1835/01 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 June 2001)

Subject: Health implications of enlargement

The Treaty of Maastricht brought public health matters within the EU’s sphere of competence, subject to compliance with the subsidiarity principle. Community action in this field is directed towards the prevention of diseases, in particular the major health scourges, by promoting research into their causes and their transmission, as well as health information and education.

Health is not one of the absolute priorities with a view to enlargement, although it is used as an indicator of the problems and challenges to be overcome by the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and it should therefore be accorded proper importance in the transition policies. Health is an essential factor in economic development and should be recognised and treated as a priority. C 364 E/214 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

According to a Commission working document (SEC(1999) 713 of June 1999), the health situation in the CEECs, particularly as regards communicable diseases, is increasingly alarming. Most of the candidate countries have yet to adopt a modern approach to surveillance, have poorly-equipped laboratories and inadequate resources and find it difficult to maintain appropriate systems for the notification of communicable diseases. Migration is expected to increase following accession, and this brings with it a greater risk that communicable diseases, particularly sexually transmitted diseases, will spread.

Furthermore, the social and financial status of health-care professionals and the incentives provided in those countries compare very unfavourably with those in the EU Member States. This has an adverse effect on the motivation of health-care professionals in those countries, and one can therefore expect there to be a strong tendency for those among them who speak foreign languages to emigrate.

Given the above, what support measures does the Commission intend to take, possibly in conjunction with the EIB, to help improve this situation?

Is it planning to involve the candidate countries in Fifth framework programme activities in the health field?

Is it considering the introduction of an aid scheme aimed a stepping up exchanges of experience relating to the use of information systems and technologies in health care?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member on the important health challenges that the candidate countries are faced with. The Union must therefore play its full part in assisting the candidate countries to address these problems, using all the available means. In its negotiations with the candidate countries, the Community has therefore stressed the importance it attaches to assuring a high level of human health protection in the definition and implementation of all Community policies.

In this context, the Commission is taking action on a number of fronts with the aim of providing practical support and assistance to the candidate countries. These include first encouraging the candidate countries to participate actively in the Community’s public health activities, such as the Community network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases, which was set up by Parliament and Council Decision No 2119/98/EC of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community (1). The candidate countries are also invited to develop a health monitoring system in order to obtain health data and indicators comparable with the Community health monitoring system, and to report to the Union on progress achieved.

In addition, the candidate countries are being encouraged to participate in the proposed new public health programme from its outset. Furthermore, they have been invited to provide detailed information on how they are preparing for Community activities in the field of public health (Article 152 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty) and on the likely changes that are needed to their health system because of these activities. They are also encouraged to participate in the Fifth framework research and technological development programme activities in the health field.

More generally, the Commission is in contact with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the relevant international organisations, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), to strengthen co-operation in providing assistance and support to the candidate countries.

(1) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/215

(2001/C 364 E/235) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1842/01 by Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission (26 June 2001)

Subject: Dutch abortion ship

This month a ship with doctors on board is sailing from the Netherlands in the direction of Ireland in order to offer Irish women the opportunity to have abortions. The ship is sailing under a Dutch flag. The abortions will be carried out in international waters.

1. Is the Commission aware of this initiative of a Dutch abortion ship moored off the coast of Ireland?

2. How does this initiative stand in relation to European Community law, relevant case-law and international public law?

3. Does the Commission think that this initiative may have the effect of undermining Irish law because the doctors on the ship intend to circumvent Irish law?

4. Has there been any discussion of this matter in the Commission? If so, what was the outcome? If not, does the Commission intend to discuss the ‘abortion ship’ initiative in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (3 September 2001)

From press information the Commission understands that no measures were taken by the Irish authorities to prevent the carrying out of the intended activity from the Dutch ship. The Commission further understands that the Dutch ship has returned to the Netherlands on its own initiative and in these circumstances there is no need for the Commission to address the matter further at this time.

(2001/C 364 E/236) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1844/01 by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission (19 June 2001)

Subject: European standard for radiation from mobile phones

The Dutch paper Financiele Dagblad of 6 June 2001 contained an article on radiation from mobile phones. The Financial Times of 9 June 2001 also considered a new study on the relationship between brain damage and mobile phones. The rapid growth in the sending and receiving of SMS messages, particularly by young people, may represent a new danger to public health. The advent of the low- radiation mobile phone may, according to the FT article, help to prevent these problems.

The Commission statement on ‘The introduction of Third Generation Mobile Communications in the European Union: State of Play and the Way Forward’ (1) considers the possibility of a single European standard for mobile phone radiation. What stage have the preparations for this European radiation standard reached?

Magcom, a Norwegian mobile phone manufacturer, has developed a magnesium phone which has a maximum radiation level of 0,005 W/kg, compared to a radiation level from most mobile phones currently on the market of around 1 W/kg. Is the Commission aware of the developments at Magcom with regard to low-radiation mobile phones, and does it agree that it would be useful to take this level of 0,005 W/kg as a base line for mobile phones produced in or imported into the EU?

Does the Commission consider it desirable that legislation should be introduced in the European Union requiring the marketers of mobile phones to state on each device the radiation levels emitted, perhaps expressed in SAR (Specific Absorption Rates) and if so, when will the Commission be submitting proposals for this type of legislation?

(1) COM(2001) 141. C 364 E/216 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Community law governing radio products in general and GSM handsets in particular oblige manufacturers to ensure that they are safe. In particular article 3.1.a of Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (1) (the ‘R & TTE Directive’) obliges manufacturers to ensure, that their products do not affect the health when used for their intended purpose. The Commission has mandated the European Standardisation Organisations to develop harmonised standards to be recognised under the Directive. The original mandate, which was given in 1993, has recently been renewed. In this revised mandate specific guidance was given to ensure that these standards follow the most up to date scientific knowledge. The standards covering mobile phones have been adopted in January 2001 and were ratified by Cenelec in July 2001. Their references will be published in the Official Journal shortly. The R & TTE Directive establishes that where products meet harmonised standards mandated by the Commission, they are presumed to be safe.

The Community has provided further guidance on the safety levels to be respected. On 12 July 1999, the Council adopted Recommendation 1999/519/EC (2) to Member States limiting the exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from 0 Herz (Hz) to 300 Gigaherz (Ghz). The full respect of the basic restrictions and reference levels included in the Recommendation will ensure users a high level of protection against acute and long-term effects of non-ionising radiation emitted by such devices. The limits recommended include a safety factor of 50 to cover possible long-term effects in the whole frequency range. The European standards drafted by Cenelec will ensure the compliance of devices put on the market with the Council Recommendation.

The Commission is following actively research in this field, and is also aware of the articles mentioned by the Honourable Member of the European Parliament. The article in Financiele Dagblad of 6 June by Professor Pieper states that it is technically possible to bring down exposure to 0,005 W/kg but he doesn’t indicate whether there are indications that the currently applied 2 W/Kg level (the 1,6 W/kg level is the level applied in the United States) causes health problems. As stated in briefing note No 05/2001 of the Parliament on electromagnetic fields and health, the currently available commercial mobile phones expose users in worst case conditions to levels between 0,22 and 1,27 W/kg, i.e. on average a factor 2 below the accepted safety levels. Furthermore a trend is visible that, in order to save battery time, mobile phones transmit at the lowest level needed to maintain communication.

The research that the Commission is aware of has not so far led to clear conclusions. For this reason the Commission has asked the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) to deliver an update of its previous opinion published in June 1998 on health risks associated to electromagnetic fields regarding new technologic developments and conditions of exposure, which at the time formed the basis of the recommendation. This will be published during the autumn 2001. At that time, the Commission will consider whether there is a need for further action.

The Commission welcomes the fact that manufacturers increasingly inform users about such levels on a voluntary basis, whereas in addition consumer organisations test mobile phones on a regular basis and provide independent information. Members of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum have further announced that all new mobiles put on the market after the 1st of October will indicate SAR levels measured according to the procedure as adopted by Cenelec. Therefore, the Commission is for the time being not considering obliging manufacturers to inform users about specific absorption rate (SAR) levels.

The Commission will continue to pay close attention to this issue. In addition to seeking advice on the outcome of current research the attention is drawn to the Community’s Fifth Research and Technological Development framework programme and notably its thematic programme ‘Quality of Life’, through which independent research activities on health effects of electromagnetic fields are conducted.

(1) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999. (2) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/217

(2001/C 364 E/237) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1845/01 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Breaches of Community rules in the Netherlands

Further to my Question P-0843/01 (1) and the Commission’s answer, I would ask a supplementary question concerning the corresponding figures for the Netherlands.

With regard to possible breaches of Community rules, will the Commission provide details of instances in which the Netherlands has drafted legislation and taken decisions which have ultimately had to be reworked at the request of the Commission?

Where there were differences between Dutch legislation and Community rules, was it possible to resolve those inconsistencies bilaterally or was it ever necessary to take matters to the court?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 49.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Further to its answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-0843/01, the Commission, while reminding the Honourable Member that there is no means of obtaining the specific data requested, can report that between 1979 and 2000 some 1 750 infringement proceedings were initiated against the Netherlands and that during this period the European Court of Justice ruled on 32 infringement cases, 27 of its judgments being for the Commission. Nearly 200 infringement proceedings against the Netherlands are currently in motion.

Nearly 60 % of infringement proceedings related to failure to notify national measures to transpose Community directives, 10 % to transposal measures that did not comply with obligations under the directives and nearly 30 % to incorrect application of Community law, whether general or individual. It is chiefly in the last type of case (incorrect application) that the Commission may call on the Member State concerned to amend its rules: the other categories (failure to notify and failure to comply with obligations) relate to the obligation to transpose Community directives properly. Finally, it should be noted that some 60 % of these cases were shelved even before a letter of formal notice had been sent, as the complaints proved to be without foundation.

(2001/C 364 E/238) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1848/01 by Angelika Niebler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Use of geoinformation in the Member States

Geoinformation (geographical and spatial data describing the features of a particular country) form an essential part of the knowledge available in modern information and communications science. It is required at all levels of administration, the economy, science and by the public at large. It is the basis for planning in numerous fields, such as for infrastructure projects in the energy, water and telecommuni- cations sectors, waste management, telematics, environmental protection and nature conservation, and in the insurance industry. Geoinformation is an increasingly important commodity worldwide. Its availability is a crucial factor in taking decisions on location and investment. The USA spends USD 7 billion a year on developing geodata infrastructure. C 364 E/218 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

1. To what extent does the Commission monitor practice and developments in the Member States in relation to the collection and compilation of geodata and their transfer to interested individuals (data access)?

2. In the Commission’s view, would it not be necessary, in order to create a single market for geoinformation, to lay down Community-wide minimum criteria to establish transparent procedures for the collection, compilation and transfer of geodata?

3. In the Commission’s view, should there be an improvement in cooperation between the Member States’ agencies responsible for the management of geodata? To what extent could Community funds be used for that purpose?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

1. To meet its internal needs, the Commission has set up a geographical reference database (GISCO) accessible to all its departments and used by the Joint Research Centre at Ispra and the European Environment Agency. This database contains topographical and thematic data of general interest at scales of between 1:100 000 and 1:10 000 000. The data come from various sources. The contours of the local administrative units were harmonised and provided by cartographic agencies, which have set up a structure (Eurogeographics  http://www.eurogeographics.org) entrusted with coordinating and designing European products (metadata systems, topographical reference bases, etc.).

Apart from that activity, the Commission neither monitors nor intervenes in the capture and collection of geographical information in the Member States.

2. and 3. The Commission is currently running a series of initiatives that are contributing in different ways to supporting and promoting Geographic Information (GI), and that in the medium term should lead to the setting-up of a European Geographic Information Infrastructure.

Two Community programmes, Information Society Technologies (IST), in the more general framework of the Fifth Research, Technological Development and Demonstration framework programme, and eContent, European Digital Content on Global Networks, one of the implementations of the eEurope initiative, support activities in the field of technological research and production, dissemination and use of European digital content. Both are targeting in a specific way Geographic Information, with particular regard to issues like metadata, interoperability, standards, reference data, access and use of data. The IST programme has planned a specific call for proposals on the ‘Use of Geographic Information’; selected projects will run and operate during the coming years, significantly contributing, together with the currently active ones, to the setting up of a European GI ‘vision’. The eContent programme, covering the period 2001-2004, will also make a contribution, through the selected projects, to improving the access to and exploitation of public sector information.

A planned Communication from the Commission, the follow-up to the Green Paper on ‘Public Sector Information: a key resource for Europe’ (1), adopted on 20 January 1999, will define European initiatives and frameworks for Geographic Information seen as a part of the more general Public Sector Information. The Communication, ‘eEurope 2000: creating an EU framework for the exploitation of Public Sector Information’, will build on the reactions to the above-mentioned Green Paper, and on the experience of the past two years, a co-ordinated set of actions including proposals for a legislative framework on the exploitation of Public Sector Information, an updating of the policies of the Community Institutions on the exploitation of Community information, and the setting up of a Working Group to promote Digital Public Data. The Communication is still under discussion, and this discussion includes a thorough analysis of the role that the Commission has to play, taking into consideration its coordination role on the one hand and respect for the subsidiarity principles on the other.

More specifically, some legislative initiatives set rules for the collection and transmission to the Commission by Member States of geographic data. Currently applied to specific domains (e.g. environment), this framework contributes to the definition of European common rules.

Finally, the Commission itself has established since end 1999 an internal inter-service group for the use of Geographic Information in the Commission, COGI. Its mandate, ‘to co-ordinate the use of Geographic 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/219

Information within the Commission services to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of European policy monitoring that require a spatial analysis of the European territory at European and global level’, while being primarily concerned with the Commission’s internal needs, can clearly contribute to setting up the framework for a European Spatial Data Infrastructure. Among its decisions, the adoption of a common metadata standard and a single reference system can be considered as the first steps in the direction of defining an integrated Geographic Information Landscape for Europe.

(1) COM(98) 585 final.

(2001/C 364 E/239) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1885/01 by Marco Pannella (TDI) to the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Montagnard tribes in Vietnam

In February 2001 the Vietnamese Government deployed tanks, helicopters and over 13 regiments of soldiers into the Central Highlands of Vietnam to quell demonstrations by Christian Montagnard hill tribes. These indigenous hill tribes were protesting over the arrest of two of their church leaders as well as years of religious persecution and confiscation of their ancestral lands. The International Commission of Jurists (Australian section) distributed a report in February 2001 concluding that since 1975, Vietnam has committed gross human rights abuses against the Montagnards, namely torture, arbitrary arrest, sterilisation policies that violate women’s rights, forced relocation and expropriation from their traditional lands and increased repression of religious freedom.

Reports indicate the indigenous Montagnard population are now being terrorised by security forces. The situation has deteriorated to such an extent that Montagnard refugees are fleeing to Cambodia with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Refugees International and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees calling for urgent action to protect them, as Vietnam has offered ‘bounties’ for their capture and return. In June 2001, martial law and a media blackout in the region continues. Vietnam has further cordoned off the region in an attempt to halt refugees.

Has the Commission already investigated the reports of human rights violations facing the Montagnard population inside Vietnam’s Central Highlands and the potential for a humanitarian crisis if more Montagnards are forced to flee as refugees? Has the Commission made the provision of aid and trade to Vietnam contingent on the Vietnamese Government complying with international human rights law?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The European Community-Vietnam Co-operation Agreement, which was signed in 1995, stated in its first Article that respect for human rights and democratic principles is the basis of this co-operation. The Commission, together with the Member States represented in Vietnam, therefore monitors closely human rights developments in Vietnam as part of the policy of the Union to encourage and support the continued commitment of the Government of Vietnam to progress in the field of human rights. The Commission also participates with the Member States in all démarches to the Government of Vietnam on Human Rights issues.

The disturbances in the Central Provinces of Gia Lai and Dac Lac in early February 2001 were the subject of a statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam. Thousands of members of ethnic minorities were reported to have taken part in demonstrations, some of which led to violence, with groups of protesters blocking a national highway and attacking a post office and telephone switchboard and other public buildings during four days of unrest. Police and military forces, including helicopters, were deployed C 364 E/220 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

to restore order. A number of arrests (initially stated to be 20) were made. These events were reported by the official Vietnam News Agency. However, foreign correspondents were not permitted to visit the two provinces.

Observers in Vietnam have attributed the protests to a complex set of circumstances. The provinces have been relatively sparsely populated for many years before the Government encouraged settlement in the area to increase the use of agricultural land hitherto little exploited by the local people. In particular, plantations were developed for the production of coffee, which has become an important export product for Vietnam. Many of the new inhabitants, however, were from the Kinh and Viet ethnic groups (the two predominant ethnic groups in Vietnam). There were also reports of land confiscation and corruption among local officials during the settlement process.

It has also been suggested that the ethnic minorities resent the efforts of the Government of Vietnam to reconcile with the Catholic and the official Protestant Churches. Many of the Montagnards are reportedly associated with a clandestine protestant evangelical church, which is not recognised by the Vietnamese authorities.

Finally, it has been recalled that, in the past, the Montagnards had first fought against, and then collaborated with the French army. Some of them had later taken up arms together with the American forces against the Communists in the Vietnam war.

The Commission continues, so far as is possible in the present circumstances of restricted access, to monitor developments in the area.

(2001/C 364 E/240) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1889/01 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission (27 June 2001)

Subject: Accession of new countries to the Union

According to Facts about Turkey, a sleek publication produced by the Turkish News Agency and distributed for some time to all MEPs, 97 % of Turkish territory is in Asia and 3 % in Europe (Eastern Thrace). Russia is in a similar situation, albeit that its European part accounts for much more than 3 % of its territory and stretches as far as the Urals. Since December 1999, Turkey has been a ‘candidate State’ for accession, despite the fact that a very small part of its territory is in Europe. Russia, a country with a vast market and inexhaustible natural resources, has not yet acquired that status as it has not submitted an application for membership.

Would a possible Russian application for accession in the distant future mean that the Union would extend its geographical frontiers to the shores of the Far East and border on countries such as China and Japan? Would it be possible (provided the Copenhagen criteria are met) to consider a ‘pilot’ accession to the Union for regions such as European Russia or Eastern Thrace (European Turkey), which clearly are in Europe and have a significantly higher level of economic development than the other regions of the countries to which they belong?

To what extent does the Commission consider it appropriate to draw up a study on such a possible development, which might result in the incorporation of some areas of those countries into the structure of Europe, and the avoidance of an adverse situation in which the EU would shoulder the burden of the economic convergence of underdeveloped, remote areas which, furthermore, belong to geographical regions which are not in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (31 July 2001)

Turkey’s eligibility as a European state which could become a member of the Community is established in Article 28 of the Association Agreement between the Community and Turkey, which was signed on 12 September 1963 and entered into force on 1 December 1964 after ratification by all the signatories in keeping with their respective constitutional procedures. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/221

The Russian Federation has given no indication that it wishes to apply for EU membership. EU- Russia relations are based on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement which entered into force on 1 December 1997. One of its objectives is to provide an appropriate framework for the gradual integration of Russia and a wider area of cooperation in Europe.

The Treaties do not envisage the possibility of EU membership for regions forming part of sovereign third countries. For that reason, the Commission does not intend carrying out a study into this possibility.

(2001/C 364 E/241) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1910/01 by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Discrimination

Is the Commission willing to abolish all age limits on Union territory which constitute discrimination on the grounds of age and are contrary to Article 13 of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission recalls that the Council adopted on 27 November 2000 Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1). This Directive prohibits discrimination on grounds of, inter alia, age, including the use of age limits which are not objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are not appropriate and necessary.

The Member States have until 2 December 2003 to transpose the requirements of the Directive into national law. In order to take account of particular conditions, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003 to implement the provisions of the Directive on age and disability discrimination. Any Member State which chooses to use this option shall inform the Commission forthwith and shall report annually to the Commission on the steps it is taking to tackle age and disability discrimination and on the progress it is making towards implementation.

As regards age limits for competitions for recruitment to the Commission, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1512/01 by Mrs Raschhofer (2).

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000. (2) See p. 132.

(2001/C 364 E/242) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1913/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Joint fisheries undertakings in Tunisian fishing-grounds

Following the meeting in Madrid between the Tunisian ambassador to Spain and the mayor of Algeciras (Andalusia), it emerges that Tunisia is willing to consider all proposals for cooperation between undertakings which will enable Spanish vessels to fish in its waters.

The facilities offered by the Tunisian government to Spanish vessel-owners and fishermen for the creation of joint undertakings include: full tax exemption for the first ten years of activity; state subsidies going up C 364 E/222 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

to 30 % of initial investment; advantages as regards fuel prices and harbour taxes; and the possibility of marketing 100 % of catch externally. 66 % of the joint undertakings’ capital would be Spanish and the rest Tunisian.

To what extent would the Commission be willing to ratify an agreement of this nature and provide the conditions to allow it to take effect, with a view to finding an alternative to the present difficult confronting Spain’s fishermen?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission is very conscious of the difficult situation of many Community fishermen.

Neither Tunisia nor any of the Member States have recently (in the last few years) approached the Commission to convey an interest in an eventual fisheries agreement between the Community and Tunisia. The Commission would also like to remind the Honourable Member that the Council adopted on 5 February 1979 (1) a set of complementary directives for the Commission with a view to negotiating a fisheries agreement with Tunisia.

In case that such interest in a potential agreement was put forward to the Commission by any concerned party, the Commission might consider launching exploratory contacts with Tunisia as a preliminary step to formal negotiations. In parallel, the Commission might also propose to the Council an update of the 1979 negotiating directives to better reflect present circumstances.

(1) No: 4600/79, 2.2.1979.

(2001/C 364 E/243) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1918/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Results of Community aid for establishment of joint fisheries undertakings

At the November 1999 meeeting of the EU fisheries ministers, a number of aids were agreed for the establishment of joint undertakings, to be equivalent to 80 % of the total granted in breaking-up aids. It was also agreed that joint undertakings would receive the same treatment both within and outside agreements with third countries.

This subject is of particular importance in view of the recent problems of the fisheries sector in the Community, given that the establishment of joint undertakings could represent a solution for the industry.

Can the Commission supply the relevant statistics for the Community fisheries industry for the period since the fisheries ministers’ decision of November 1999 concerning joint undertakings? Can it also state what developments on this front are likely in the immediate future, with a view to a possible new approach for the EU’s fisheries sector and given that sector’s particular sensitivity?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

On 17 December 1999 the Council adopted 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), which amended the conditions for the setting up of joint enterprises as from 1 January 2000. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/223

The reports presented to the Commission by the Member States concerned indicate that the number of joint enterprises established in 2000 with support from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) was very small. Only Spain provided financing for two such projects, for an investment totalling some € 2,67 million. The contribution from the Community amounted to € 1,33 million.

It should be noted that in the first year of implementation of FIFG structural programmes the number of projects selected for financing by the national authorities is smaller on account of the time required by the Member States to put in place national aid schemes.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2001/C 364 E/244) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1921/01 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Public procurement and invitations to tender

Further to Parliament’s consideration of the directives on tendering, will the Commission state:

1. the percentage of GDP represented by public procurement in each Member State, and

2. the percentage of the value of public procurement represented by public invitation to tender in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission has estimated the value of total public procurement as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) for the period 1993 to 1998.

Total Procurement as a percentage of GDP (%)

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Belgium 8,49 8,42 7,85 7,50 8,09 8,02 Denmark 14,92 15,02 15,19 15,82 15,82 15,81 Germany 16,51 16,23 15,91 15,86 15,19 14,72 Greece 12,65 11,99 13,37 12,90 12,63 13,41 Spain 13,45 13,04 12,47 11,45 11,29 11,35 France 11,70 11,11 10,70 10,30 10,06 9,79 Ireland 11,60 11,85 11,57 10,81 10,76 11,29 Italy 12,29 11,65 11,12 10,85 10,63 10,85 Luxembourg 15,60 13,60 13,63 13,97 13,25 13,02 Netherlands 11,80 11,51 11,22 11,14 11,01 10,99 Austria 16,88 17,08 16,21 16,27 16,64 17,43 Portugal 12,91 12,59 12,57 13,45 15,04 14,90 Finland 13,76 13,71 13,27 13,47 13,95 13,60 Sweden 15,83 18,15 17,34 18,02 18,15 16,80 United Kingdom 22,11 23,71 24,31 23,62 21,27 22,84 14,93 14,92 14,62 14,34 14,00 14,13 C 364 E/224 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

These figures are based on the General Government Data as reported to the Commission by Member States’ National Statistical Institutes according to the European Standard of Integrated Economic Accounts (ESA)79 accounting rules, and verified by the Statistical Office of the European Communites (Eurostat). They include estimates for the Utilities based on data provided by the entities themselves in 1994 and 1998.

This figures may be revised upwards on the basis of ESA 95 accounting rules, which started being applied practically from 1998.

The Commission has also estimated the value of public procurement advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities Supplement S, as a percentage of GDP for the period 1994 to 1999. The table is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat.

The change to the European System of Accounts also affects the estimate of the amount of public procurement published in the Official Journal as a percentage of GDP, since the calculation of GDP has changed, although the estimate of published public procurement has not.

To maintain comparability, therefore, in the following table the figures for 1998 are given both according to the previous accounting rules and according to ESA95.

(2001/C 364 E/245) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1924/01 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 June 2001)

Subject: Racist organisations in applicant countries

In her answer of 7 June 2001 to my Question No E-0601/01 (1), Commissioner Diamantopoulou refers to a number of measures which the Commission has taken or is to take in order to curb instances of racism and xenophobia in the Member States and in those countries preparing for membership of the EU.

One of the applicant countries is Turkey, whose human rights record has little in common with the standards applying in Europe. As I pointed out in my Question No 0601/01, however, Turkey ‘exports’ racist fanaticism outside Turkey, as evidenced by the brutal murders in 1996 of two unarmed Cypriot citizens on the ‘green line’ in Cyprus by members of the racist organisation the ‘Grey Wolves’, warrants for whose arrest have been officially issued by the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus. Despite that, the Commissioner’s answer is extremely ‘woolly’. She avoids answering my Question whether this fascist organisation’s activities have been raised with Turkish officials, while adding that ‘the Commission has not raised specific incidents or the existence of specific organisations in this context’.

Does the Commissioner’s reluctance to answer the Question mean that the ‘Grey Wolves’ acts of violence and racial hatred inside and outside Turkey have not come to the attention of the Commission? Is the Commission aware of this organisation? What are the Commission’s views on its racist activities and the murders it commits, and when does it intend to raise the issue of this organisation’s terrorist operations with Turkish officials?

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 83.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The Commission denounces all forms of racism and xenophobia wherever they may occur. The Union equally condemns terrorism in all its forms.

As regards the events to which the Honourable Member refers, the Union issued on 16 August 1996 a declaration which stated that ‘The European Union strongly deplores the recent violence in Cyprus and the disproportionate use of force by the security forces in the north of Cyprus in response to unauthorised 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/225

entry into the buffer zone. It condemns the brutal killings of Tassos Isaac and Solomos Solomou and expresses its deep concern about the injuries sustained by many others, including United Nations peacekeeping personnel. The recent events have again highlighted the urgent need to intensify efforts to promote a comprehensive political settlement in Cyprus, under the aegis of the United Nations. The European Union reiterates its full support for the work of the Secretary-General and his special representative in this regard’.

In the 1999 Regular Report on Cyprus’s progress towards accession (1) under the heading ‘the situation in the northern part of the island’ it was also mentioned that ‘no progress has been registered in the investigation of the death of two Greek Cypriot demonstrators in the United Nations buffer zone in 1996’.

The Commission follows closely the efforts undertaken by all candidates with regard to the Copenhagen political criteria, in particular in the field of the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Commission will make a detailed analysis of the situation in light of the pre-accession strategy as part of the Regular Report to be published in November 2001.

(1) COM(1999) 502 final.

(2001/C 364 E/246) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1926/01 by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 June 2001)

Subject: Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993: incorporation into national law

Article 211 of the EC Treaty stipulates that the Commission has the task of ensuring that the Treaty is applied. The information in the Celex system about the transposition of Directive 93/16/EEC (1) (to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications) is incomplete and in some cases incorrect or out of date. Can the Commission say what steps the Member States have taken to transpose Directive 93/16/EEC and supply the current texts of the national laws concerned?

(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

First of all, the disclaimer in the CELEX database clearly indicates that the documentation provided on national implementing measures is not necessarily comprehensive and does not necessarily guarantee conformity with all requirements of Community law.

Secondly, the Directive to which the Honourable Member refers (Directive 93/16/EEC) (1) is a consolidation of four directives, which had themselves been adopted after the basic Doctors Directives 75/362/EEC and 75/363/EEC (2). No additional implementing measures were therefore required of Member States at the time of the adoption of this Directive which did not change the substantive obligations involved. Reference can therefore be made  under the above conditions  to the national implementing measures referred to in connection with the preceding directives.

Equally Directive 93/16/EEC itself has been amended several times (3).

While, in general, the Doctors Directive has largely been implemented in all 15 Member States, specific problems still persist. This is why the Commission is pursuing infringement procedures against Germany (1999/2065), Austria (1998/4293, 1998/4296) and France (1998/4265) for the non respect of different provisions of the above directives. C 364 E/226 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The Commission services do undertake an evaluation of all national measures which are necessary for the implementation of Directives and which are required to be notified to the Commission. However, the services do not seek to maintain a single up-to-date archive of all such measures on a comprehensive and continuous basis. Information on the development of Member States’ regimes is exchanged with Member States in a variety of ways including through the meetings of various committees of national officials.

(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993. (2) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975. (3) Directive 97/50/EC (OJ L 291, 24.10.1997); Directive 98/21/EC (OJ L 119, 22.4.1998); Directive 98/63/EC (OJ L 253, 15.9.1998); Directive 1999/46/EC (OJ L 139, 2.6.1999).

(2001/C 364 E/247) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1935/01 by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(29 June 2001)

Subject: Promotion of tourism in Europe

Replying to parliamentary Questions in the past, the Commission has never thought it worthwhile to set up a European tourism agency.

However, for several years Europe has undoubtedly been the world’s leading tourist destination, and France, which received 75 million visitors in 2000, is now, along with the USA, the world’s most visited country.

In certain European countries’ balances of payments, tourist activities often rank first among the items showing a surplus.

Consequently, does not the Commission think it essential and a matter of urgency to set up a European tourism agency to promote and exploit the EU countries’ numerous tourist activities?

Can the Commission say whether it intends to propose creation of such an agency?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The Commission is perfectly aware of the importance of tourism for Europe’s economy, through its contribution to both gross domestic product (GDP) and exports.

Following the conclusions of the June 1999 Council, the Commission worked in close cooperation with the Member States to maximise the contribution of tourism to growth and employment. It is currently preparing a communication on this topic, the purpose of which will be to set out the framework for the future of tourism in Europe, especially with regard to Community activities based on a strategic and cooperative approach.

However, the Commission can confirm that in the present circumstances it has no plans for setting up a European tourism agency. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/227

(2001/C 364 E/248) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1940/01 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Natural gas supply in the Lisbon area

The switch to natural gas in the Lisbon area has prompted many complaints from gas consumers and has also significantly increased the number of accidents on account of the poor quality of the services provided by the gas company Lisboagás.

This state of affairs is the result of the disbanding of Lisboagás’ technical departments, which has led to the loss of jobs held by highly skilled and experienced staff who have since been replaced by contractors and subcontractors which provide labour on a casual basis (i.e. unskilled labour).

In addition, where the old town-gas pipes and other installations are concerned, Lisboagás has not carried out the necessary work of replacing everything that is made of lead piping, galvanised iron with screw joints and flax-tow seals, cast iron with riveted joints and seals which use lead and asbestos thread, and so on. Since natural gas does not have the same characteristics as town gas, the future supply network will be even more susceptible to leaks and accidents.

This state of affairs has been condemned by a number of bodies including the Portuguese consumer- protection organisation, and by the Lisbon city civil-defence department, which has carried out inspections in consumers’ houses and has detected many faults and gas leaks which are cause for serious concern regarding the safety of fittings and installations.

This is in spite of the fact that Community legislation relating to the gas sector requires each distribution company to develop, operate and maintain a safe, reliable, efficient and environmentally sound network.

Is the Commission aware of this serious state of affairs? To what extent does that state of affairs comply with relevant EU laws? What type of action is provided for under those laws in order to guarantee a safe network which will prevent the occurrence of accidents attributable to the use of sub-standard materials or the lack of suitably trained fitters?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

The Commission had not been previously informed of certain deficiencies in the gas distribution system in Lisbon.

Safe and reliable natural gas pipeline systems are a condition sine qua non for limiting the risks incurred in the transportation of natural gas. For reason of the physical characteristics of natural gas and the risks both for the public health and for the environment, the Commission is of the opinion that the national and international codes and standards for the design and construction of gas pipeline systems and associated facilities, available and enforceable either in accordance or in conjunction with national legislation, shall not be compromised.

The responsibility for compliance with and maintenance of the technical safety requirements, under national law governing the construction and operation of gas installations, gas pipelines and distribution systems, lies with the national authorities.

The Commission has no direct competence regarding safety of technical gas installations.

In the Portuguese legislative context, all natural gas projects require the approval of the Ministry for Industry and Energy. Their technical specifications must be in accordance with the relevant national law, hence with the technical requirements and specifications laid down and the various decrees hereto enacted. To the Commission’s knowledge, the pipeline design and construction requirements under Portuguese law and the obligatory application of international standards and norms developed in this area are of equally high level as in other Member States and should, if respected, contribute to the safe operation and supply of natural gas. C 364 E/228 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/249) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1942/01 by John Purvis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (3 July 2001)

Subject: Future regulation of human tissue products

Does the Commission consider that there should be further regulation at a European level of medical devices involving the retrieval, cultivation and application of human tissue? If so, what scope and timetable are anticipated?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (10 September 2001)

Aware of the importance and sensitivity of human tissue products, in particular their use in medical devices, the Commission is examining the need, scope and nature of a Community regulatory initiative regarding the application of human tissues in medical devices. On ethical Questions, like the retrieval and cultivation of human tissue, it is appropriate to apply the principles laid down in the Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being.

(2001/C 364 E/250) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1943/01 by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission (3 July 2001)

Subject: Regularising the work of tourist guides

The EU lays down the principle whereby a tourist guide may provide services in a country other than his/ her country of origin when accompanying a group of foreign tourists, provided that he/she does not provide those services in places where a specialist guide is required, such as museums and sites which form part of a country’s historical or architectural heritage.

However, this is the EU’s only stipulation regarding the work of tourist guides.

Does the Commission not think that the presence of a properly trained tourist guide is a requirement if the excursions which are marketed throughout Europe (involving whole- or part-day visits to a particular geographical site and implicitly or explicitly including natural, cultural and historical attractions) are to be conducted satisfactorily?

In any event, is the Commission planning to take any further steps to regulate the work of tourist guides at EU level?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (4 September 2001)

The principle to which the Honourable Member refers to has been established by the Court of Justice in its case law on tourist guides (judgments of 26.2.1991, Case C-154/89 France [1991] ECR I-659, C-180/89 Italy [1991] ECR I- 709 and C-198/89 Hellenic Republic [1991] ECR I-727). The Court has held that requiring that tourists are accompanied by a specialised professional guide is justified where there is a need to protect the general interest in ‘the proper appreciation of places and things of historical interest’ and to ensure ‘the widest dissemination of knowledge of the artistic and cultural heritage’ of a country. According to the reasoning of the Court, what is relevant in order to determine whether this interest exists or not, is not the duration of the excursion, but the artistic, architectural, historical or otherwise cultural character of the attraction to be visited.

The Commission does not intend to propose any specific measure concerning the profession of tourist guide. Under Articles 40 and 47 (ex-Articles 49 and 57) of the EC Treaty, Community Directives concerning professions are only aimed to facilitate the free movement of people while the regulation of 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/229

professional activities falls under the responsibility of Member States. The Commission is, however, working on the improvement of Community legislation in the field of mutual recognition of professional qualifications in general. In June 2001, the Commission launched a public consultation to prepare for a new Directive in this field (1). The Commission has a proposal for a more uniform, transparent and flexible regime for professional recognition programmed for adoption before the Spring European Council in 2002.

(1) European Commission Staff Working Paper on The Future Regime for Professional Recognition (May 2001).

(2001/C 364 E/251) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1947/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Turkey’s restrictions on Assyrians/members of the Syriac Orthodox Church

The detention and prosecution of the Syriac Orthodox priest Yusuf Akbulut evoked much comment internationally, and it was thanks to this attention that he was ultimately acquitted. The Turkish State presumably felt compelled to backtrack and instruct the Diyarbakir State Security Court to acquit Akbulut.

The Turkish State seems to have responded with resentment to having been compelled to backtrack in the case of Yusuf Akbulut and to the otherwise growing pressure on Turkey to introduce changes. Now the Turkish State has taken its revenge.

The Turkish Interior Ministry has issued a decree imposing far-reaching restrictions on all Assyrians/ adherents of the Syriac Orthodox faith from Europe who wish to visit their ancestors’ villages in south- eastern Turkey. Many young people who are now in search of their identity and have not been able to visit their ancestral villages because of the war in south-eastern Turkey are now prohibited by this decree from exploring their families’ roots and their cultural heritage. Turkey is continuing its systematic destruction of the Assyrian/Syriac Orthodox cultural heritage. Churches and monasteries, many of them more than a thousand years old, have been converted into mosques or barns for livestock. Turkey is trying to conceal its barbaric action by means of the decree.

How will the Commission induce Turkey to cease its constant harassment of Assyrians/adherents of the Syriac Orthodox faith?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The protection of minorities including the freedom of religion is part of the Copenhagen political criteria to be fulfilled by candidate countries. Ensuring cultural diversity and guaranteeing cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin is a medium-term priority listed in the Accession Partnership for Turkey (1). The Commission follows closely the situation of religious minorities in Turkey. It is with some concern that the Commission has been informed of the recent cases of mistreatment and discriminations against Syriac Orthodox willing to return to their home villages.

In this context, it is to be hoped that the adoption on 12 June 2001 by the Prime Minister of a circular instructing all relevant authorities to ban any discriminatory practice against Syriac Orthodox will contribute to improve the situation.

The Commission will give its evaluation of the situation in its Regular Report to be published in November 2001.

(1) Adopted by the Council on 8 March 2001 (OJ L 85, 24.3.2001). C 364 E/230 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/252) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1949/01 by Johan Van Hecke (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Presidency declaration of 12 June 2001 on Sudan

Why does the European Union in its Presidency declaration of 12 June 2001 refer to renewed military activity by the SPLA but not to the massive offensives by the Sudanese government in the Nuba mountains and on the Southern Blue Nile in May and June 2001? Why does the European Union speak of a ‘resumption’ of air raids, when reports by NGOs and local witnesses show that the air raids in fact never stopped? Should the European Union not consider appointing a special envoy for Sudan in Nairobi, whose mandate would be to make regular visits to the area in Question and gather objective, accurate information from both the government and the rebel sides?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

This Question should be addressed to the Council.

(2001/C 364 E/253) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1956/01 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Nationalisation of the property of Community nationals in Ethiopia

In his answer to my Written Question No E-0879/01 (1), Commissioner Nielsen stated that ‘in discussions with the Ethiopian Government, the Commission has, on various occasions, expressed the need to create an environment that is conducive to private sector development and domestic as well as foreign direct investment.’ With regard to Ethiopia’s confiscation of the property of Community nationals, he adds that ‘the Commission cannot but advise affected citizens to contact their relevant national diplomatic representation in Ethiopia which will follow up on these claims.’

The EU, therefore, confines itself to addressing fine words and recommendations to countries such as Ethiopia which confiscated the property of Greek, Dutch, French, Italian and other nationals overnight, while simultaneously increasing the Community resources provided from the 9th European Development Fund (EDF). As Commissioner Nielsen noted, these sums amount to € 384 million for envelope A and € 154 million for envelope B.

What is the Commission’s position on the possibility of directly linking the provision of Community aid to countries such as Ethiopia  which refuses to revoke the damaging reforms imposed by the communist Mengistu regime  with a requirement that the government of that country immediately respect the fundamental human right to own property, abandoning the ineffective and dead-end tactic of making recommendations? How can the EU not be thought of by its citizens as an accessory to robbery, since it is funding the receivers of stolen property, who are auctioning it off in the presence of their victims? Does it not demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of the EU when, instead of helping its citizens who have been robbed of their property, it rewards and gives financial support to the robbers? (The terms ‘robbers’ and ‘receivers of stolen property’ are used in their strict legal sense).

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 141. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/231

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

As the Honourable Member will be aware, development co-operation of the Commission with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries is based on the rules and conditionalities defined in the Lomé Convention and ratified by all the Member States. This Convention does not contain any legal link to property rights of European citizens, nor does the Cotonou Agreement that was signed a year ago and is presently in the process of ratification.

Although the Commission wholeheartedly subscribes to the principle of private property and fully supports the application of this principle for European citizens all over the world, it cannot legitimately use the instrument of development aid to pressurise a partner government into a certain behaviour in this context. As already explained in the Commission’s answer to Written Question E-0879/01 (1) by the Honourable Member, the Commission will have to limit itself to making its point of view known with all the necessary insistence.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 141.

(2001/C 364 E/254) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1959/01 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Participation in ASEM Meetings

Working Group meetings of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), such as the Investment Experts’ Group and the Senior Officials’ Meeting on Trade and Development, involve the active participation of the business community, notably the Asia Europe Business Forum (AEBF) comprising leading businessmen from the 25 ASEM partner countries. Indeed, the AEBF is described as being supported by ASEM Government agencies and is actively encouraged to contribute to policy-making.

Will the Commission please state:

1. whether, and if so to what extent, Community funds are used directly or indirectly to facilitate the participation of AEBF members in such meetings, and

2. why similar facilities and access are not offered to other stakeholders, notably civil society organisations and trades unions?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

1. The AEBF is a private sector. The Community supports the objectives of the AEBF and sends an observer to its meetings but does not give any financial support to it.

2. The Commission is always ready to meet other stakeholders and has met civil society groups on numerous occasions to discuss ASEM matters. Civil society has met in the margins of the various ASEM summits, and in particular in a People’s Forum at the last ASEM summit meeting in Seoul in October 2000. C 364 E/232 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/255) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1960/01 by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: State aids to Electricité de France (EDF)

EDF has acquired sizeable stakes in the electricity industry in the United Kingdom (London Electricity), Germany (ENBW), Italy (Montedison), and Spain (Hydrocantàbrico), having outdone its rivals by offering very high prices in the negotiations. The French electricity market has been opened up to the minimum extent laid down in the ‘electricity’ Directive, but, at all events, only negligible fractions of demand are covered by companies other than EDF, which is wholly owned by the French State.

European electricity industry sources believe that EDF is underestimating the costs of decommissioning its nuclear installations and because of this is able to charge artificially low selling prices. The procedures for writing off the installations are determined by the French Government, which owns EDF. The accounting data available for EDF show that the interest which the company is paying on its substantial debt is well below the market rates.

In the light of the foregoing, does not the Commission, and in particular its President and the Member responsible for competition, believe that infringement proceedings should be instituted immediately against France on account of the State aids granted to EDF, which are severely distorting trade between countries? Does not the Commission believe that, until such time as the investigation into this matter has been completed, it should exercise the powers accorded to it under Article 3(g) of the EC Treaty to prevent EDF from buying more shares in companies based in other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission is currently examining the French regulatory framework in which Electricité de France (EDF) operates in order to establish whether its provisions contain elements of state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) (formerly Article 92(1)) of the EC Treaty.

In connection with the Green Paper on security of energy supply (1), the Commission is already engaged in preparing a detailed inventory of all forms of financing granted by Member States in respect of various energy products. Once this preliminary examination has been completed, the Question of any funding for the nuclear industry and its compatibility with the relevant rules of the Treaties can be analysed, including the influence of such funding on the operation of the electricity market.

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that any specific information he can supply regarding the facts objected to could speed up matters considerably.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.

(2001/C 364 E/256) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1961/01 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: EC-Macao cooperation officer

In paragraph 18 of the resolution adopted on 15 February 2001 (A5-0017/2001) on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The European Union and Macau: beyond 2000 (1), Parliament made a recommendation in which it ‘[asked] the Commission to appoint an EC-Macau cooperation officer to Macau, as announced in its abovementioned communication, to contribute to the coordination of bilateral cooperation, in order to demonstrate its commitment to consolidating relations between the two sides’. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/233

This concern was already put forward in Parliament’s earlier debates, when it adopted its previous resolution on Macao on 16 December 1999, at the time when Portuguese administration ended and Macao acquired the status of a special administrative region within the People’s Republic of China. The above Commission communication to the Council and Parliament, moreover, charted the same goal.

Addressing Parliament in the February debate, the Member of the Commission concerned, Mr Nielson, said that: ‘With regard to cooperation, the resolution calls upon the Commission to settle quickly the Question of appointing a technical cooperation officer for Macao. Here I would have liked to be able to report that the nominated technical cooperation officer had been appointed in November as had been planned. Unfortunately the selected candidate withdrew at the final stage after a selection procedure that lasted several months. We continue to consider the appointment of the technical cooperation officer very important’.

Parliament, indeed, is most anxious for the EU-Macao cooperation officer to be appointed and start work.

Can the Commission therefore say what progress has been made as regards the appointment of the EC- Macao cooperation officer and how soon the officer will be able to start work?

(1) COM(1999) 484  C5-0169/2000  2000/2099(COS).

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Honourable Member rightly recollects that the selected candidate withdrew from his nomination as Co-operation Officer for Union-Macao Co-operation last November 2000.

Following this disappointing news, and in view of the reorganisation of the Commission’s external co- operation delivery system at the start of this year, the Commission has been preparing the required multi- annual, co-operation programming for Macao, including the Co-operation Officer appointment.

In this context, the Commission is pleased to be able to report that this programming is now in its final stages and the Question of the Co-operation Officer will be resolved shortly.

(2001/C 364 E/257) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1971/01 by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Liquid Petroleum Gas fuel

What initiatives has the European Union taken with regard to the conversion of motor vehicles to Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) fuel? What is the full cost to the EU of such initiatives?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

The European type approval system regulates the placing on the market of new passenger cars. The regulatory framework comprises all the safety and environmental requirements which such vehicles have to satisfy before they are allowed to be placed on the market. Until recently, this system was not completely adapted in order to take into account all the specific characteristics of liquid petroleum gas (LPG) fuelled vehicles. For this reason, Member States needed to request a derogation for new LPG vehicles with respect to one or more European type approval directives. C 364 E/234 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

In recent years, the Community has adopted a number of amendments to these type approval directives concerning LPG fuelled vehicles. Following the accession to United Nations economic commission for Europe (UN-ECE) regulation 67 regarding specific provisions for LPG fuel tanks and the adoption of an amendment to Council Directive 70/220/EEC of 20 March 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by gases from positive-ignition engines of motor vehicles (1) to provide specific dates of application of on-board diagnostic systems for LPG fuelled vehicles, it will now be possible to receive a European type approval for an LPG fuelled vehicle. In this way, these vehicles can now benefit fully from the internal market.

The conversion of vehicles already placed on the Community market falls within the competence of the Member States. Several Member States have taken regulatory or fiscal measures in order to encourage such conversions depending on the specific situation prevailing within their territory.

Additionally, a draft regulation has been prepared at UN-ECE level in order to harmonise specific requirements for LPG retrofit systems. The adoption of this regulation is currently being considered by the Union institutions.

(1) OJ L 76, 6.4.1970.

(2001/C 364 E/258) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2006/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Chemicals in fast food

Eric Schlosser’s diatribe of a book entitled Fast Food Nation reveals the alarming fact that the taste of the fare served up at fast-food outlets all over the world is produced by chemical flavourings which are damaging to health because they apparently lead to obesity, the risk of heart attacks, colon and stomach cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, and sterility.

In the light of these worrying allegations:

1. Is the Commission aware of the problem?

2. Will it make provision for research with a view to establishing the truth of the claims?

3. If the information in its possession were to corroborate the accusations, what steps would it call for to protect the health of European citizens?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the publication referred to and is not in a position to comment on its content. However, the Commission would like to recall the legislation and actions taken to ensure safety of flavourings.

Community legislation on flavourings covers the use of flavourings in all foodstuffs, not only the use in a particular category of foods, and aims at a high level of consumer health protection.

Council Directive 88/388/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to flavourings for use in foodstuffs and to source materials for their production (1) prohibits the addition of certain substances as such to foodstuffs and sets maximum levels for these substances in foodstuffs to which flavourings and other food ingredients with flavouring properties have been added. These substances of toxicological concern are naturally present in source materials for flavourings, like herbs and spices, and cannot normally be avoided. The intake of such substances via flavourings is 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/235

normally low in comparison to the intake via herbs and spices. The Commission is currently working on an amendment of Directive 88/388/EEC, including an update of the list of these substances of toxicological concern and their maximum levels in foodstuffs. For this reason, the Commission has requested the advice of the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF). The respective SCF opinions are expected by the end of 2001, after which the Commission intends to submit a proposal to the Parliament and the Council.

Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 of the Parliament and the Council of 28 October 1996 (2) lays down a procedure for establishing a positive list of flavouring substances intended for use in or on foodstuffs2. The procedure includes a full scientific evaluation by the SCF of flavouring substances which are used in the Member States (Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 (3)). This evaluation began in July 2000. After the evaluation has been completed, the Commission will propose a list of flavouring substances the use of which will be authorized to the exclusion of all others in the Community. If, during this evaluation, it becomes apparent that a flavouring substance does not comply with the general use and safety criteria, it shall be deleted from the list of flavouring substances used in the Member States.

(1) OJ L 184, 15.7.1988. (2) OJ L 299, 23.11.1996. (3) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.

(2001/C 364 E/259) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2009/01 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Checks on Belgian visas

Under the third pillar if the European Union (justice and home affairs) the improper issuing of Belgian visas merits particular attention, not least because a temporary residence permit for the Belgian Federation also gives access to all the Schengen countries. Such residence permits are worth their weight in gold to criminals and make the migration sector enormously vulnerable to corruption.

In answer to two Questions to the Council on this matter (E-0621/01 and E-0622/01 (1)) I was informed by the Council on 30 May that ‘with the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, matters relating to immigration, visas and asylum fall within the Community’s sphere of competence under Title IV of the TEC. It is therefore for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to verify whether Member States fulfil their obligations in respect of those matters’.

In the past year, Belgium issued approximately 9 500 visa to Moroccan applicants; some 88 % of those visas (short- and long-term alike) were issued by the Department for Alien Affairs in Belgium despite an unfavourable opinion from the consular services in Morocco. That unfavourable opinion, on the grounds of failure to comply with the criteria, was thus systematically ignored.

Some of the applicants say openly that it forms no part of their intention to travel to Belgium but to some other Schengen country, where the issue of visas is more strictly controlled. That results in an unfavourable opinion that is forwarded to the Department for Alien Affairs. The latter invariably sends back a report to the effect that the visas should be issued in any event. It is to be feared that more and more people-traffickers will try to use Morocco as a point of entry to the EU.

That will nullify the effect of any action by the EU to bar lucrative routes to human-trafficking.

Is the Commission aware of the irregular issuing of Belgian visas? C 364 E/236 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

If so, what steps has the Commission taken to ensure that the Belgian Federation will seek a solution to this problem?

If not, will the Commission seek further information about the swindle in Belgian visas, given their importance to the third pillar of the European Union (justice and home affairs) and the policy of the Schengen countries?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 163.

(2001/C 364 E/260) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2010/01 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Checks on Belgian visas

Under the third pillar if the European Union (justice and home affairs) the improper issuing of Belgian visas merits particular attention, not least because a temporary residence permit for the Belgian Federation also gives access to all the Schengen countries. Such residence permits are worth their weight in gold to criminals and make the migration sector enormously vulnerable to corruption.

In answer to two Questions to the Council on this matter (E-0621/01 and E-0622/01 (1)) I was informed by the Council on 30 May that ‘with the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, matters relating to immigration, visas and asylum fall within the Community’s sphere of competence under Title IV of the TEC. It is therefore for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to verify whether Member States fulfil their obligations in respect of those matters’.

In the past year, Belgium issued approximately 9 500 visa to Moroccan applicants; some 88 % of those visas (short- and long-term alike) were issued by the Department for Alien Affairs in Belgium despite an unfavourable opinion from the consular services in Morocco. That unfavourable opinion, on the grounds of failure to comply with the criteria, was thus systematically ignored.

Some of the applicants say openly that it forms no part of their intention to travel to Belgium but to some other Schengen country, where the issue of visas is more strictly controlled. That results in an unfavourable opinion that is forwarded to the Department for Alien Affairs. The latter invariably sends back a report to the effect that the visas should be issued in any event. It is to be feared that more and more people-traffickers will try to use Morocco as a point of entry to the EU.

That will nullify the effect of any action by the EU to bar lucrative routes to human-trafficking.

Has the Commission  in the light of the above  urged the Belgian Federation to incorporate essential prevention measures into its visa policy, such as a rotation system for sensitive duties, or double-checking and screening of officials?

If so, when did the Commission make such a request to the Belgian Federation?

If not, why has the Commission still not urged essential preventive measures in the Belgian Federation’s visa policy, given its importance to the third pillar of the European Union (justice and home affairs) and the policy of the Schengen countries?

Will the Commission continue to urge such measures?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 163. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/237

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2009/01 and E-2010/01 given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (6 September 2001)

The procedures and conditions for issuing short-stay visas are laid down in the Common Consular Instructions (CCI) (1), an instrument of the Schengen acquis now integrated into the framework of the European Union. Long-stay visas remain the responsibility of the individual Member State and are not, therefore, covered by the CCI.

The CCI sets out the criteria for determining which Member State is responsible for handling an application for a short-stay visa. Responsibility rests in the first instance with the Member State that is the sole or main destination of the visit. Failing this, the Member State which is the first point of entry will be responsible.

While recognising that the organisation of visa services is a matter for each Member State, the CCI lays down a number of principles of good organisation addressed to heads of consular posts: staff should not be exposed to local pressures and there should be a regular rotation of officials to prevent the development of habits which could lead to a decline in the level of vigilance.

As far as relations between the consulates and the central administration are concerned, it is for each Member State to make the arrangements it deems necessary in terms of organisation, management and safeguards.

The Commission is not aware of the matters referred to by the Honourable Member and intends to contact the Belgian authorities for further information.

(1) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.

(2001/C 364 E/261) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2014/01 by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission (6 July 2001)

Subject: Plans for the ‘Gigapole’ shopping centre on the Franco-German border (district of Forbach)

Plans under way to build a huge ‘Gigapole’ shopping centre covering 100 000 square metres on the Franco-German border in the district of Forbach in the département of Moselle.

This gigantic centre would have a severely negative impact on the retail trade on both sides of the border. The Saarland traders’ association estimates that purchasing power of DM 400 million per year would be diverted from local businesses to this ‘Gigapole’. The consequences would be inner city desolation and a retail slump in the neighbouring Saarland towns of Saarbrücken, Völklingen and Saarlouis as well as in the towns of Sarreguemines and Forbach in Lorraine.

Such a ‘mega-centre’  exploiting its proximity to the border  is contrary to all the rules of organised regional planning and socio-economic development.

Will the Commission, therefore, say: 1. whether it is aware of the plans for the ‘Gigapole’ in the district of Forbach, and 2. what measures it intends to take to stop this distortion of competition and breach of regional planning principles?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (10 September 2001)

The Commission has not been informed of the plans for the construction of a ‘Gigapole’ shopping centre in the Forbach area. Regulation of the establishment of shopping centres does not fall within Community C 364 E/238 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

competence. Regional or spatial planning is dealt with by the competent regional or national authorities of the Member States. Thus it is not for the Commission to take a stance on such Questions.

However, the Commission encourages cross-border co-operation of the competent national or regional administrations.

The Community competition rules (Articles 81 and 82 (ex-Articles 85 and 86) of the EC Treaty) concern the elimination of agreements between undertakings which restrict competition (e.g price-fixing agreements between competitors) and of abuses of a dominant position. Article 82 does not as such prohibit dominance.

While the Commission is willing to examine any complaint brought to its attention, it is unable, in the absence of any further detail, to share the view of the Honourable Member that the planned ‘Gigapole’ shopping centre in the Forbach area is likely to distort competition in the sense of the Community competition rules.

(2001/C 364 E/262) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2057/01 by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Directive 1999/44/EC concerning guarantees on consumer goods: inadequate protection of shopkeepers

Directive 1999/44/EC (1) requires shopkeepers to give consumers two years’ guarantee on the consumer goods they sell. Suppliers, importers or manufacturers, on the other hand, are not subject to any statutory guarantee obligation towards the shopkeeper. Consequently, shopkeepers have to rely on the good will of their suppliers when they are required to repair or replace a faulty product. In practice, retailers often have to bear the cost of repair or replacement themselves. To bring legal action often takes too long and is too expensive.

Does not the Commission consider that it is unbalanced and unreasonable to impose such stringent guarantee obligations on shopkeepers when the latter do not have the same means of redress against the manufacturer or importer of the faulty product? Has the Commission already considered this imbalance in the existing legislation, and has it received any other complaints about it? Does it not think that the legislation ought also to give the shopkeeper certain rights if he has bought a faulty product from his supplier?

(1) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Article 4 of Directive 1999/44/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, provides the final seller with a right of redress directed against other members of the distribution chain. Article 4 stipulates that, where the final seller is liable to the consumer because of a lack of conformity resulting from an act or omission by the producer, a previous seller in the same chain of contracts or any other intermediary, the final seller shall be entitled to pursue remedies against the person or persons liable in the contractual chain. The person or persons liable against whom the final seller may pursue remedies, together with the relevant actions and conditions of exercise, shall be determined by national law.

It is therefore up to the Member States’ legislation to provide effective means of redress for the final seller.

However, the contractual relationship between the final seller and the person in the distribution chain from whom he/she buys  being a contract between two traders  is governed by the principle of freedom of contract. Therefore it is possible that the legal rights of the seller are restricted by way of contract. This has been clarified by recital 9 of the Directive. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/239

For the Honorable Member’s information, the Directive is to be put into effect by means of the national implementing measures from 1 January 2002.

Disputes and complaints arising from transactions regulated by the Directive’s implementing measures will have to be addressed within the scope of the national legal systems of the Member States.

(2001/C 364 E/263) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2072/01 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: European legal bases for the prosecution of persons involved in extreme right-wing activities

Right-wing extremism is a Europe-wide phenomenon not restricted to individual states. In some cases right-wing extremists are punished by the courts in one Member State only to continue their activities in another.

1. What legal provisions exist which could be used to halt extreme right-wing activities throughout the EU?

2. Does the Commission intend to put forward a proposal for a directive clearing the way for the prosecution throughout the EU of persons involved in extreme right-wing activities?

3. What provisions exist at international level on the basis of which such persons could be prosecuted outside the EU as well?

4. If no such provisions exist, does the Commission intend to propose their introduction?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

There is no EU legislation banning extreme right-wing activities as such.

However, the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) states that the Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States. The proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights reaffirmed the Union’s commitment on this matter.

The Commission therefore condemns all forms of violence or expressions of racism or xenophobia which constitute a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

As regards the criminal law, on 15 July 1996 the Council adopted a joint action on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia. It requires Member States to make a number of types of racist or xenophobic behaviour punishable as a criminal offence, or, failing that, to derogate from the principle of double criminality for such behaviour.

The Commission is planning to table a draft legislative instrument (framework decision) this year to replace the above joint action. This act will contain common definitions, offences and penalties for crimes involving racism and xenophobia. Member States will be required to take the necessary steps to comply with the framework decision once it has been adopted by the Council. C 364 E/240 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/264) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2080/01 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Emissions inside motor vehicles

Increasingly I have been receiving complaints about harmful emissions inside motor vehicles, particularly new vehicles. These emissions, caused by various synthetic materials and air conditioning systems, are said to constitute a threat to health and affect drivers’ competence, thus causing accidents.

Is the Commission aware of this problem?

What is the Commission’s assessment of the possible risks of emissions inside motor vehicles?

What steps is the Commission taking to prevent risks, e.g. by changing type-approval specifications?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission is aware of concerns that the air quality within a vehicle may actually be poorer than that found at the roadside but this is really due to the vehicle following directly in the exhaust emissions left by the vehicles in front. This may be particularly the case in areas of dense traffic congestion at slow vehicle speeds or when travelling through a long tunnel with very poor ventilation. More and more new vehicles are equipped with air filtering systems to alleviate such a problem when the vehicle draws air in from the outside through its cabin ventilation system. The Commission has no information that points to the atmosphere within a vehicle as a specific cause of traffic accidents.

The Commission is not aware of any concerns that the air quality within a vehicle is due to emissions from the materials the vehicle is constructed from or from air conditioning systems. At the time of type- approval, the vehicle, having been run-in by driving at least 3,000 km, undergoes a test to measure the evaporative emissions from a vehicle as a whole, not point sources of evaporative emissions. In this way, emissions from new plastic materials, new paint and the fuelling system are assessed over a rigorous test regime to ensure that the overall evaporative emissions are no more than 2 grammes per test (the test requirements are given in Annex VI to Directive 98/69/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/220/EEC (1)). However, at this time the test protocol does permit a manufacturer to propose a test method that takes into account the loss of hydrocarbons by evaporation coming only from the fuel system of the vehicle. The Commission has no data that shows how many type- approval authorities have accepted an evaporative emissions test on the basis of the manufacturer’s test method.

(1) OJ L 350, 28.12.1998.

(2001/C 364 E/265) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2081/01 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Leader+ programme delay

Given the significant benefits that have accrued from previous Leader programmes in fostering partnership, sustainable agricultural enterprises, local economic growth and social inclusion throughout Ireland and the 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/241

European Union; and given the current delay in the approval of the Leader+ operational programme guidelines and the subsequent difficulties which this is causing to groups and companies on the ground in Ireland; could the Commission explain the undue delay in the approval of the guidelines, and can it confirm that it will approve the Leader+ programme guidelines in the very near future, before further jobs are put in jeopardy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission has tried, as far as possible, to avoid any lack of continuity in programming between the 1994-1999 period and the new 2000-2006 period. In the case of Leader, the Commission Notice to the Member States setting out guidelines for the Leader+ Community Initiative was published in the Official Journal on 18 May 2000 (1). Member States (and regions) were asked to submit their programmes under Leader+ within six months from this date (i.e. by mid-November 2000). The Commission indicates within the Leader+ guidelines that it will approve such programmes within five months of their receipt (but respect of this timescale is clearly subject to a receipt of an admissible programme, and to satisfactory progress in subsequent negotiations). The selection of beneficiaries (the Leader Local Action Groups (LAGs)) should take place within a maximum two-year period from the date of approval of programmes.

It is understood that the Irish authorities provided funding to maintain group capacities in the interim period. That said, given that the selection of LAGs (to be undertaken by the competent national authorities) must be by open and competitive procedures, in order to ensure the selection of the highest quality LAGs, there should be no assumption that LAGs which received financing under Leader II will ‘automatically’ be re-selected under Leader+. This decision should depend upon the quality of their bids alongside competing applications.

Turning to the specific example of the Irish Leader+ programme, the programme has been submitted to the Commission on 15 November 2000 and has just been approved on 3 July 2001. This approval took place after a complex negotiation procedure. The initial proposal submitted by the Irish authorities has been completed and amended, and this required a considerable effort from both parties. The scope for selection of LAGs will be large enough. It will to a large extent depend on the specific timetable and selection procedures envisaged by the Irish authorities, whom the Commission suggests to contact direct for further details on these matters.

(1) OJ C 139, 18.5.2000.

(2001/C 364 E/266) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2086/01 by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Simplification of CAP administration

Could the Commission provide an update on the present situation regarding the simplification of CAP procedures following the decision to simplify direct aid payments, and does it have any plans to extend this scheme on a wider basis?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Following the adoption by the Council, on 19 June 2001, of the Commission’s proposal (1) to simplify payments of small amounts to farmers, work has begun on the preparation of the necessary detailed implementing rules. A first meeting on these rules was held between the Commission and representatives of the Member States’ administrations on 3 July 2001, and further meetings are planned. C 364 E/242 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The Council Regulation (EC) No 1244/2001 of 19 June 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (2) provides for the simplified payments scheme to be applied from 1 January 2002, although it should be recalled that participation is voluntary for Member States as well as for farmers. Work on the implementing rules should be completed in time for those Member States which so wish to be able to apply the scheme as from that date.

In his declaration in the Parliament’s plenary session of 14 July 2001, the member of the Commission responsible for agriculture stressed that this simplified payments scheme is for a trial period, and that it is hoped that a successful outcome will lead to the scheme being extended.

(1) OJ C 120 E, 24.4.2001. (2) OJ L 173, 27.6.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/267) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2088/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Regulation on the set-aside of European farmland

The European Union authorises plots of land set aside under the relevant regulation to be used for the cultivation of leguminous plants for use as fodder. However, that positive measure is erroneously restricted to farms which convert to organic farming.

Because of that restriction, the cultivation of leguminous plants offers no solution to some pressing agricultural problems such as manure, sharply diminishing soil fertility and the heavy dependence on concentrated feed (protein) from the United States. What is more, the difficult relationship between conventional farmers and organic farmers is being further exacerbated.

Accordingly, an extension of the set-aside regulation to all farms is becoming a matter of urgency.

Will the Commission extend the regulation on the cultivation of leguminous plants on land set aside to all farms, since its restriction to organic farms offers no solution to pressing agricultural problems such as manure, sharply diminishing soil fertility and the heavy dependence on concentrated feed (protein) from the United States? If not, why does it oppose an extension of the regulation on the cultivation of leguminous plants on land set aside to all farms? What alternatives can it put forward for tackling pressing agricultural problems such as manure, sharply diminishing soil fertility and the heavy dependence on concentrated feed (protein) from the United States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1038/2001 of 22 May 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (1) is not intended to offset the shortfall in plant proteins resulting from the total ban on the use of meat and bone meal in animal feed.

It is nevertheless clear that the BSE crisis has made public opinion highly critical of current agricultural production methods, particularly as regards animal feed, and demonstrates the need to return to more environment-friendly farming practices. One appropriate means of encouraging this can be to use the set- aside scheme to promote organic production of fodder legumes. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/243

That was the intention behind expanding the scope for using set-aside land under the support system for producers of certain arable crops established by Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999.

The measure was restricted to agricultural holdings whose entire production complies with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (2), in order to prevent any abuse which could jeopardise this production method.

A more general measure on set-aside land would undermine the purpose of the set-aside scheme, which must remain an instrument for controlling production.

The Commission therefore sees no need to take further measures at present.

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001. (2) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.

(2001/C 364 E/268) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2091/01 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Ban on night working for young people  4 a.m. start for bakers’ apprentices

Council Directive 94/33/EC (1) of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work lays down restrictions on night work for young people. Article 9 stipulates a rest period for young people between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. or between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. According to Article 9(2)(a) Member States may authorise young people to work during these periods in specific areas of activity, but working between midnight and 4 a.m. is prohibited under all circumstances according to subparagraph (b).

This provisions creates problems for bakeries in particular. Because of changing customer requirements it has become necessary to extend bread production later and later into the night. Bread and pastries have to be available in bakers’ shops by 6 o’clock in the morning. However, according to the legislation quoted above bakers’ apprentices may not work before 4 a.m., which means that they are unable to learn how to make dough, which is an essential part of professional training for bakers. An amendment to the Directive on the protection of young people at work could remedy the problem.

It is precisely small and medium-sized bakeries, who have always been responsible for most of the training of apprentices, who would be increasingly willing to train apprentices.

Is the Commission aware that Article 9(2)(b) of Directive 94/33/EC is hindering the training and employment of bakers’ apprentices?

Can the Commission consider proposing an amendment to Article 9(2)(b) of Council Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work to ensure that the compulsory rest period of 4 hours is movable, depending on the year of training for bakers’ apprentices, to make it possible to lay down a rest period from 11 p.m. to 3 a.m. for second-year apprentices and from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. for third-year apprentices?

(1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to Article 1 of Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work (1), which states that Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that work by adolescents is strictly regulated and protected under the conditions laid down in the Directive and, furthermore, that Member States shall ensure in general that employers guarantee that young people have working conditions which suit their age. C 364 E/244 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

As regards night work performed by adolescents, the Directive stipulates that Member States shall adopt measures necessary to prohibit work either between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. or between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Member States may, by legislative or regulatory provision, authorise work by adolescents in specific areas of activity during the period in which night work is prohibited but also in such cases, work between midnight and 4 a.m. must be prohibited. The possibility, set out in the Directive, to depart from this general prohibition in certain sectors, does not cover the bakeries sector.

The Commission feels that this provision allows Member States to find a balance between the vocational training requirements of adolescents and the need to protect young people against work liable to be detrimental to their safety, health or physical development. At the moment the Commission is not planning to propose any amendments to the Directive.

(1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.

(2001/C 364 E/269) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2097/01 by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: ESF support for training in Connaught, Ulster

Will the Commission provide details of the level of EU support through the European Social Fund to Connaught, Ulster from the period June 1994 to date?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission manages the European Social Fund (ESF) at a programme rather than project level and does not hold records of ESF spending on a sub-regional level.

However, the Managing Authority for the ESF in Ireland, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has provided the following details of ESF spending from January 1994 until December 1999 under the Human Resources Development Operational Programme (HRD OP) and for 2000 under the Ireland Objective 1 and Objective 1 in Transition Employment and Human Resources Development Operational Programme (EMPHRD OP).

Records of drawdowns from the European Structural Funds under the 1994-1999 round were not broken down by province and specific figures for the Connaught and Ulster areas are therefore not available.

From an examination of regional forecasts and available data on expenditure it can, however, be estimated that the total drawdown for the Border and Western regions, under the HRD OP, was approximately:

 IEP 108 070 000 for the Western region, and

 IEP 162 250 000 for the Border region.

During the 1994-1999 programming period, in addition to the HRD OP, a total amount of € 395 755 471 in ESF assistance was allocated to Ireland through five sectoral programmes, the Tourism OP, the OP for Industrial Development, the Fisheries OP, the Local Urban and Rural Development OP and the OP for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry.

For the 2000-2006 funding period Ireland has regionalised into 2 NUTS II regions, the Border, Midland and Western region (BMW) and the Southern and Eastern region (SAE). All funding allocations for the new round were made on a regional basis. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/245

While the BMW region does not equate exactly with the Connaught and Ulster area because of the inclusion of Counties Longford, Louth, Westmeath, Offaly and Laois, figures for this region are the most accurate available at this time and indicate a drawdown, under the EMPHRD OP, for 2000 of IEP 23 110 000 in the BMW region.

For the 2000-2006 programming round, additional assistance is allocated to the BMW region through the Border, Midland and Western Region Objective 1 OP. The allocation to this region for 2000 amounts to € 1 880 000.

(2001/C 364 E/270) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2109/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 July 2001)

Subject: Price differences in the EU

At the end of May the Commission presented the initial results of its survey into price differences on the European market with regard to two sectors: electronic goods and fresh products. The survey shows that prices for certain electronic goods may diverge by up to 40 % from one Member State to another, while prices for fresh products may vary by a factor of three. Significantly, the Commission notes that European consumers could make savings averaging around 12 % if they purchased each product at its lowest sale price in the EU.

Such a situation cannot be seen as constituting a genuine single market. Can the Commission specify the reasons for these price differences among the EU Member States and indicate what steps it will take to favour greater price convergence in the sectors concerned?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

Price convergence should take place in a competitive and efficient economic environment where competition drives prices to converge at the lower levels of the price range. This is essential to realising the full potential of the Internal Market to the benefit of consumers.

The Commission considers that prices are the best indicators of market performance, especially from the point of view of consumers and consequently, the monitoring of price differences within the Internal Market is being improved. Issue n. 8 of the Internal Market Scoreboard released the first results of this improved monitoring. Further results will be published in the Commission’s Cardiff report on the functioning of product and capital markets before the end of this year. Results to this date confirm the persistence of significantly high price dispersion in the fresh fruit and consumer electronics sectors.

Detailed information on price differences at the market level is indispensable to identify the origin of those differences. Even in a perfectly integrated market, factors such as differences in consumers tastes or preferences, transport costs and the tradability of some goods can result in price differences. These latter factors explain part of the high price differences that are observed in some fresh food goods.

At this stage of its monitoring process, the Commission cannot draw definitive conclusions, but there is evidence pointing to the existence of other causes of a structural nature which, while being compatible with the EC Treaty, are not compatible with a well-functioning Internal Market. This evidence suggests that factors such as differences in distribution systems and regulatory differences could explain a significant part of remaining price differences. In those cases, structural reforms would be needed in order to improve market performance. Most of those structural reforms have to be implemented at the national level. The recommendations issued in the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines will contribute to that end. C 364 E/246 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

At Community level, the implementation and development of the economic reform programme laid down in the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council (23/24 March 2001) is the best instrument to undertake the necessary reforms to eliminate regulatory and structural barriers which not only are obstacles to price convergence but also and more importantly hinder Community’s market performance.

(2001/C 364 E/271) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2121/01 by Johannes Voggenhuber (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: The influence of certain consolidation measures by the Republic of Austria on the financial balance of the State sector in accordance with the European System of Integrated Economic Accounts (ESA) 95

As part of measures to consolidate the budget in order to achieve a balanced State budget in Austria, some Länder are planning to alter the financing of clinics, set up property companies to deal in land, and sell off loans which have been granted to encourage the building of housing. Hitherto the Länder were required to finance their clinics’ losses by means of grants. However, in Carinthia, for example, it is intended that as from 2001 the Clinics Operating Company, which has been a market enterprise since 1997, should take out a loan to meet all losses. At the same time the Land of Carinthia will grant it an interest-free loan equivalent to the annual loss and will subsequently assume the resulting annuity service and ancillary expenses. In the context of achieving the joint consolidation objective, the Federal Ministry of Finance is explicitly in favour of this change in the method of financing clinics because the clinics are market enterprises and the loans which they take out are not attributed to the Land. How should the interest-free loans from the Länder to the clinics actually be treated under ESA 95?

By means of an amendment to the Federal Real Estate Act, the Federal Government has transferred property valued at ATS 33 billion to the Federal Real Estate Company (BIG). The BIG is wholly owned by the Federation. The purpose of setting up the BIG is to bring into line with private-sector conditions the management of buildings and land belonging to the Federation and the use and realisation of property transferred or acquired by the Federation. How does this revenue from the transfer of property affect the Federation’s financial balance (pursuant to ESA 95)? Many Länder, including Carinthia, are planning to set up property companies of their own to deal in land in a similar way, which would be wholly owned by the Land. Property belonging to the Land would be sold to these companies. How will this revenue affect the financial balances of the respective Länder (pursuant to ESA 95)?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The issues raised should be examined in the light of the European System of Integrated Economic accounts (ESA 95).

Austria notifies the Commission of its deficit and debt data twice a year. In this context, regular follow-up missions to Member States are organised by Eurostat. The Austrian authorities will most likely inform Eurostat about the issues raised in the course of the next mission, which is supposed to take place before the end of the year. A detailed discussion between Eurostat and the Austrian Central Statistical Office will then take place.

As regards the arrangements relating to public clinics and the arrangements relating to the Federal Real Estate Company (BIG), the ESA 95 principles should be recalled.

In ESA 95, public clinics are classified in the non-financial corporations sector (outside the general government) only if they are institutional units and if they are providing market services. 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/247

To provide market services, they must be mainly financed by households and/or private insurance companies, or mainly financed by general government if they provide services for the general government at economically significant prices.

It they are non-market, on the contrary, they must be classified in the general government sector.

As regards the interest-free loans from the Länder to the clinics, if Austrian public clinics are institutional units providing market services, this should be treated as follows:

 If the provision of funds is an unrequited transaction, that is if loans are made with no likelihood of repayment, it should be treated as a capital transfer;

 If the provision of funds implies a repayment to the government under contractual conditions (the date of repayment is explicit) and there is a clear likelihood of repayment, it should be treated as a loan. However, the potential interest on the loan which is being waived might be considered a subsidy to the provision of services.

Concerning the transfer of property to the Federal Real Estate Company (BIG) it should be recalled that according to the ESA 95 principles:

 If most BIG activity is devoted to providing services to general government units, then it should be classified in the general government sector;

 If BIG is renting/leasing mostly outside general government, it should be treated as a non-financial corporation.

A final decision on BIG classification, however, will be taken by Eurostat following the forthcoming visit to the Austrian Central Statistical Office.

(2001/C 364 E/272) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2123/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Transposition of Community legislation into the law of the Member States

According to the biannual scoreboard published by the Commission, there are significant delays in the transposition of Community legislation into the Member States. In particular, 11 % of Community legislation enacted is not transposed into the national law of the Member States within the specified deadlines, and only three Member States (Sweden, Denmark and Finland) seem to be honouring the commitment made at the Lisbon Summit to transpose 98,5 % of Community legislation into their national law by 2002. According to Commissioner Bolkestein, the following countries, in declining order, are in danger of not attaining the target of transposing Community legislation by March 2002: Greece, France, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Austria and Germany.

Given the above data, will the Commission say whether it considers that Portugal’s decision to appoint a person with exclusive responsibility for transposing Community legislation into its national law is an effective measure and whether it intends to propose that other Member States adopt a similar approach to ensure that they attain the goal set at the Lisbon Summit?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

It is for Member States to decide how they wish to organise themselves with a view to transposing Community legislation into national law. Some Member States, such as Portugal, Sweden and Luxembourg, have appointed national transposition co-ordinators who are responsible for ensuring that steps are taken to transpose Community legislation on time. The results from the May 2001 Internal Market Scoreboard reveal that these Member States have reduced their transposition deficits successfully. Sweden’s deficit of C 364 E/248 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

0,5 % is the lowest of all Member States. Luxembourg and Portugal, with deficits of 2 % and 2,7 % respectively, have each moved up four places in the overall ranking since they appointed a national transposition co-ordinator.

The Commission encourages the exchange of best practice on transposition, such as the appointment of transposition co-ordinators and/or regular reporting on progress to national parliaments, particularly through the Internal Market Advisory Committee. It expects Member States to consider these experiences as part of their efforts to attain the 1,5 % deficit target set by the European Council for Spring 2002.

(2001/C 364 E/273) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/01 by Colette Flesch (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Brussels: a capital for Europe?

According to press reports, the Belgian Prime Minister and the Commission President have organised a discussion forum on the role of Brussels as capital of Europe.

1. Does the President’s involvement stem from a Commission decision?

2. If so, does the Commission think it right to intervene in this way regarding the seat of the institutions by coming out on the side of Brussels? Can it justify its attitude?

3. If not, should the Commission President be considered to be acting in a personal capacity?

4. Is he willing to show the same kind of support for Luxembourg and Strasbourg?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Mr Prodi, President of the Commission, took part in the discussion forum referred to by the Honourable Member as a follow-up to Declaration No 22 annexed to the Treaty of Nice relating to the venues for European Councils. The Commission recalls that the Declaration states that ‘As from 2002, one European Council meeting per Presidency will be held in Brussels. When the Union comprises 18 members, all European Council meetings will be held in Brussels.’

The discussions at this event sponsored by Mr Verhofstadt and Mr Prodi were purely an intellectual exercise with a view to clarifying the image and role of Brussels in the light of the European Council Declaration: there was no intention of calling into Question the decisions on the seats of the institutions, determined by the EC Treaty.

Thus the last Question is superfluous.

(2001/C 364 E/274) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2226/01 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2001)

Subject: Tobacco directive, Article 7

Can the Commission confirm that the descriptor ban on normal-strength cigarettes does not apply to cigarettes exported outside the EU? 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/249

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Article 7 of Directive 2001/37/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (1) states that with effect from 30 September 2003 and without prejudice to Article 5 (1) of the same Directive, texts, names, trademarks and figurative or other signs suggesting that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than others shall not be used on the packaging of tobacco products. There is no distinction made between tobacco products imported into, exported from or manufactured in the Community. There is a reference in Recital 27 to the justification for this measure and to the development of international rules, a reference to the draft World Health Organisation framework Convention on Tobacco Control, in the negotiation of which the Community and its Member States are presently engaged.

(1) OJ L 194, 18.7.2001.

(2001/C 364 E/275) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2227/01 by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 July 2001)

Subject: Economic resources of the European political parties

At the June part-session I put an oral Question about the economic relations of the European political parties (H-0460/01) (1) and received an answer from the Commission on 13 June which was incomplete and unsatisfactory.

The background to my Question was that the new concept of ‘European political parties’ is hard to translate into practical reality because it has to be distinguished from ‘national political parties’, while at the same time being something different from the political groups in the European Parliament which are to a varying extent already functioning as European political parties. Is it possible to imagine any other sphere of activity for the European political parties than the political territories of the Member States?

Your reply failed to answer the main point of my Question.

I therefore have no choice but to return to the matter and to ask:

 What does the term ‘own resources’ in the Commission’s answer mean? Could these, for example, come from the funds of national parties? Will the European parties be permitted to accept large-scale financial support from national parties?

 Will it be permissible for a part of the remaining 75 % to come from the national parties (should the Commission be unable to pay the full amount)?

 I understand that rigorous financial controls will be carried out, but for that very reason I should like to know what rules apply. Are the European parties to be permitted to use their resources for activities in the Member States, or will the new regulations rule that out?

(1) Written answer of 13 June 2001.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 2001)

The Commission tabled its original proposal on 13 February 2001 and, following Parliament’s Opinion given on 17 May 2001, tabled a revised proposal on taking up some of Parliament’s amendments. C 364 E/250 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

The proposal is currently pending before Council, where unanimity is required. No final decision can be expected before October 2001.

The Commission proposal lays down that parties must cover at least 25 % of their budgets from own resources, that is to say from any resources other than the Community Budget. This own resources component could be covered by contributions or subscriptions from national member parties or from individuals or organisations.

The total amount that a party can receive from the Community Budget will depend on the resources made available by the budgetary authority and the application of the distribution provisions set out in Article 7(a) and 7(b) of the draft Regulation. It is conceivable that this amount might represent less than 75 % of a party’s total budget.

Control of financing under this regulation shall be exercised in accordance with the Financial Regulation and its implementing rules and also on the basis of an annual certification by an external independent audit.

European political parties may not contribute financially to purely national political activities with resources from the Community Budget.

(2001/C 364 E/276) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2231/01 by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission

(18 July 2001)

Subject: Liberalisation of shop-opening hours

In its economic policy guidelines, the Commission called on Austria to further liberalise shop-opening hours. At present, Austria’s 66-hour per week limit is indeed the lowest in any Member State, and this is having adverse effects not only on purchasing power, tourism and the country’s attractiveness as a business location, but also in terms of employment in the distributive trades and creating jobs in related sectors. Border areas are particularly badly affected. In addition, petrol stations are increasingly selling food and thus distorting the market. A government agreement extending shop-opening hours to 72 hours per week has been signed by the government but has not yet been implemented.

What steps does the Commission propose to take to prevent distortion of competition owing to shop- opening hours being liberalised to different extents?

Will it take action in respect of those Member States which fail to liberalise in good time? If so, what action will it take?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties raised by differences in the national legislation on shop- opening hours. It should be remembered that, although this is a matter for the Member States, they must deal with it in compliance with Community law. The problem of shop-opening hours has, moreover, given rise to case law on the part of the Court of Justice. It is clear from that case law that the Court has refused to declare incompatible with Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty national rules on shop-closing arrangements (1), but that is not the case as far as the compatibility of such measures with Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services is concerned. Moreover, the Court has recognised the applicability of Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty on the freedom of establishment to regulations on the closure of retail outlets on Sundays and public holidays, although it felt that, in this 20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/251

case, the restrictive effects of the regulations on the freedom of establishment are too uncertain and indirect for the obligation laid down to be regarded as being capable of hindering that freedom (2).

In this context, the Commission will examine the problem of shop-opening hours as part of the follow-up to its Communication to the Council and the Parliament on an Internal Market Strategy for Services (3). The Commission in fact recently adopted a new strategy with a view to improving the operation of the internal market in services which will be split into two phases: the first phase will involve identifying the obstacles hindering cross-border activities in the field of services; the second phase will involve proposing measures aimed at removing those obstacles.

(1) Court of Justice, 16 December 1992, B & Q, Case C-169/91, ECR 1992, p. I-6635; Court of Justice, 2 June 1994, Boermans, Joined Cases C-401/92 and C-402/92, ECR 1994, p. I-2199. (2) Court of Justice, 20 June 1996, Semeraro Casa Uno, Joined Cases C-418/93 et seq., ECR 1996, p. I-2975. (3) COM(2000) 888 final.

(2001/C 364 E/277) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2335/01 by Gerard Collins (UEN) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Dissolution of the Advisory Council on Medical Training (ACMT)

The ACMT, which is the body responsible for ensuring that equivalent standards of undergraduate education and postgraduate training obtain throughout the EU, has not met for three year. How does the Commission propose to ensure acceptable standards in these areas among healthcare professionals and training institutions in the applicant states, given the free movement of workers after enlargement?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

According to the Council Decision 75/364/EEC setting up the Advisory Committee on Medical Training (1), the Committee was established to contribute to the objective of ensuring a comparably demanding standard of training, particularly through giving advice to the Commission. The Commission has already proposed replacing this Committee, as well as the other Committees working under the other directives providing for recognition of specific professions in the health sector, by more flexible procedures for the gathering and exchange of information and advice. In this context, and as the Committee agreed at its last meeting, informal procedures have been used in the meantime to ensure the completion of its on-going work.

The Commission also continues to consult the Committee of Senior Officials on Public Health on all Questions relevant to the operation of the Doctors’ Directive as well as other specific directives in the health sector. This Committee was created ‘with the task of identifying and analysing any difficulties which might arise from the implementation of the Directives relating to the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services of doctors, collecting all relevant information on the conditions under which medical care is given in Member States and delivering opinions which could guide the Commission’s work on possible amendments to those directives’ (Council Decision 75/365/EEC (1) as amended by Council Decision 77/455/EEC (2) and later decisions).

Concerning the process of enlargement of the Union, an initiative for expert mobilisation is currently being organised with the Technical Assistance Information Exchange Office (TAIEX) to facilitate the exchange of information with candidate countries. The Commission has also recently issued a consultation document on the future of the regime for professional recognition. This document is accessible on the Europa website at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/qualifications/consult.htm. It is partly in view of enlargement that this consultation includes the Question of how existing procedures C 364 E/252 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001

can be simplified. The Commission will take account of the responses sent in by the deadline set of 28 September 2001.

(1) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975. (2) OJ L 176, 15.7.1977.

(2001/C 364 E/278) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2399/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (20 August 2001) Subject: Repatriation of powers Will the Commission indicate whether a Member State is entitled to repatriate unilaterally to its national parliament powers that it has ceded to the European Union under the treaties? If a Member State were to repatriate some of those powers, what, in the Commission’s view, would its membership status be?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (7 September 2001) The delimitation of powers between the European Union and the Member States is laid down by the Treaties establishing the European Union and the European Communities. These Treaties cannot be amended unilaterally. The allocation of powers can be changed only by an amendment to the Treaties in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 48 (formerly Article N) of the Treaty on European Union.