Official Journal C26E Volume 44 of the European Communities 26 January 2001

ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C26E Volume 44 of the European Communities 26 January 2001

English edition Information and Notices

Notice No Contents Page

I (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2001/C 26 E/001) E-1827/99 by Mogens Camre to the Commission Subject: Structural aid for private firms’ marketing and staff training (Supplementary Answer) ...... 1

(2001/C 26 E/002) E-2183/99 by Niels Busk to the Commission Subject: Committees and working parties in the field of law ...... 2

(2001/C 26 E/003) E-2216/99 by Enrico Ferri to the Commission Subject: Application of the principle of the free movement of services (Article 49 of the EC Treaty) with regard to the rules on the personal use of satellite dishes ...... 3

(2001/C 26 E/004) E-2226/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Internet access ...... 4

(2001/C 26 E/005) E-2229/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Internet advertising trends ...... 4

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2226/99 and E-2229/99 ...... 4

(2001/C 26 E/006) E-2412/99 by Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines to the Commission Subject: The Murcia region and the ERDF ...... 5

(2001/C 26 E/007) P-2439/99 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Commission Subject: Protection of European companies in Kosovo (Supplementary Answer) ...... 6

(2001/C 26 E/008) E-2653/99 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Events at Malpensa ...... 7

(2001/C 26 E/009) E-2735/99 by Carlo Fatuzzo to the Commission Subject: Free entry to museums for Community citizens between the ages of 55 and 65 ...... 8

(2001/C 26 E/010) P-2750/99 by Dorette Corbey to the Commission Subject: Turtles, nature conservation and accession: Cyprus ...... 8 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 26 E/011) E-2756/99 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Regulation of the poultry sector ...... 9 (2001/C 26 E/012) E-2798/99 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Extension of the lorry depot at the customs post of S. Andrea, in the province of Gorizia (Italy), despite the Slovenia’s forthcoming entry into the EU ...... 10 (2001/C 26 E/013) E-2846/99 by Michel Raymond to the Commission Subject: Article 30(1) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 (forestry support) ..... 11 (2001/C 26 E/014) E-0061/00 by Josu Ortuondo Larrea to the Commission Subject: Extension of the franchises of private motorway operators in Spain ...... 12 (2001/C 26 E/015) E-0090/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Milk quotas in Galicia ...... 13 (2001/C 26 E/016) P-0130/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the Commission Subject: Administration of OLAF (Supplementary Answer) ...... 13 (2001/C 26 E/017) E-0176/00 by Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: Municipality of Rome’s parking ban and levy of entry charge ...... 14 (2001/C 26 E/018) E-0187/00 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Dioxin scare and PVC ...... 15 (2001/C 26 E/019) E-0191/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: European Union Subsidies ...... 17 (2001/C 26 E/020) E-0203/00 by Niels Busk to the Commission Subject: Customs stamps in non-Community countries ...... 18 (2001/C 26 E/021) E-0208/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo ...... 18 (2001/C 26 E/022) E-0213/00 by Gérard Caudron to the Commission Subject: Harmonisation of rules on the transport of dangerous goods by road ...... 19 (2001/C 26 E/023) E-0214/00 by Bernard Poignant to the Commission Subject: The wreck of the ‘Erika’ and compensation for the fisheries and aquaculture sector from the Structural Funds ...... 20 (2001/C 26 E/024) E-0221/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: State aid to the EPAC Empresa para a Agro-Alimentação e Cereais, SA (Agro-foods and Cereals Com- pany, Ltd) ...... 21 (2001/C 26 E/025) P-0225/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Council Subject: European Working Groups ...... 22 (2001/C 26 E/026) E-0227/00 by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra and Gerardo Galeote Quecedo to the Com- mission Subject: Arrest of moderate dissidents in Cuba ...... 22 (2001/C 26 E/027) E-0247/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Withholding of the premium for tobacco producers for the Community Tobacco Fund (Supplementary Answer) ...... 23 (2001/C 26 E/028) E-0255/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: McDonald report ...... 24 (2001/C 26 E/029) E-0258/00 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: EU fish catches by volume and value ...... 25 (2001/C 26 E/030) E-0269/00 by Jan-Kees Wiebenga to the Council Subject: Schengen-area border checks at Schiphol airport ...... 26 (2001/C 26 E/031) E-0271/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Functioning of the internal employment market between the EU and Switzerland ...... 26 (2001/C 26 E/032) E-0277/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Integration of foreigners in Switzerland ...... 27 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 26 E/033) E-0293/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Czech Republic’s progress on the way to accession ...... 28 (2001/C 26 E/034) E-0294/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Czech Republic’s progress on the way to accession ...... 28 (2001/C 26 E/035) E-0295/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Czech Republic’s progress on the way to accession ...... 28 (2001/C 26 E/036) E-0296/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Progress with implementing European Union objectives in the Czech Republic ...... 28 (2001/C 26 E/037) E-0297/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Situation of minorities in the Czech Republic ...... 29 (2001/C 26 E/038) E-0298/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Acquisition of land in the Czech Republic ...... 29 (2001/C 26 E/039) E-0299/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Protection of minorities in the Czech Republic ...... 29 (2001/C 26 E/040) E-0300/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Unsettled property claims between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Czech Republic ...... 30 (2001/C 26 E/041) E-0301/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Promotion of European legal culture in the Czech Republic ...... 30 (2001/C 26 E/042) E-0302/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: European Parliament resolution of 15 April 1999 on the report from the Commission on the Czech Republic’s progress towards accession (1998) ...... 30 (2001/C 26 E/043) E-0303/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: European Union accession negotiations with the Czech Republic ...... 31 (2001/C 26 E/044) E-0398/00 by Hartmut Nassauer to the Commission Subject: Accession negotiations with the Czech Republic ...... 31 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0293/00, E-0294/00, E-0295/00, E-0296/00, E-0297/00, E-0298/00, E-0299/00, E-0300/00, E-0301/00, E-0302/00, E-0303/00 and E-0398/00 ...... 31 (2001/C 26 E/045) P-0307/00 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro to the Commission Subject: Financial aid for the disaster areas in Champagne-Ardennes (France) ...... 32 (2001/C 26 E/046) E-0315/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Greek Ministry of Agriculture programme for withdrawal of fishing vessels ...... 33 (2001/C 26 E/047) E-0325/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez to the Commission Subject: Lists of vessels authorised to fish using drift nets ...... 34 (2001/C 26 E/048) E-0384/00 by María Rodríguez Ramos to the Commission Subject: The environmental situation in the Moncayo nature park ...... 35 (2001/C 26 E/049) E-0388/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Genetic tests on immigrants in Switzerland ...... 36 (2001/C 26 E/050) P-0403/00 by Werner Langen to the Commission Subject: Effects of the abolition of duty-free sales ...... 37 (2001/C 26 E/051) E-0414/00 by Torben Lund to the Commission Subject: Hormone-mimicking substances ...... 38 (2001/C 26 E/052) E-0417/00 by Maurizio Turco to the Commission Subject: Budget nomenclature encouraging the practice of false subsidies ...... 39 (2001/C 26 E/053) E-0424/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Research and testing using animals ...... 40 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 26 E/054) E-0426/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Kosovo detainees in Serbia ...... 41 (2001/C 26 E/055) E-0436/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: The Commission’s position regarding the United Kingdom’s attempts to regionalise fisheries in Community waters ...... 42 (2001/C 26 E/056) P-0442/00 by Jan Wiersma to the Commission Subject: Domestic fuel oil for opposition towns in Serbia ...... 43 (2001/C 26 E/057) E-0447/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Damage to the environment of the Peñiscola marshes (Valencia) caused by EU-funded projects ...... 44 (2001/C 26 E/058) E-0454/00 by Karin Jöns to the Commission Subject: Austrian warnings concerning salted saithe products and smoked salmon under the rapid warning system for foodstuffs (pursuant to Directive 92/59/EEC) ...... 45 (2001/C 26 E/059) E-0460/00 by Klaus Hänsch to the Commission Subject: Animal welfare issues raised by the production of pâté de foie gras ...... 46 (2001/C 26 E/060) E-0476/00 by Joseph Daul to the Commission Subject: Forest damage following Hurricane Lothar ...... 47 (2001/C 26 E/061) E-0479/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya to the Commission Subject: Objective 2 for the Balearic Islands ...... 48 (2001/C 26 E/062) E-0482/00 by Alejandro Cercas to the Commission Subject: Funding under the Interreg Community initiative ...... 49 (2001/C 26 E/063) E-0490/00 by Glenys Kinnock and Ioannis Souladakis to the Commission Subject: Sex trafficking in Kosovo ...... 50 (2001/C 26 E/064) E-0494/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Problem of security and jurisdiction ...... 50 (2001/C 26 E/065) E-0504/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Reassignment of Commission staff ...... 51 (2001/C 26 E/066) E-0512/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Offshore centres and the exchange of information concerning payments ...... 52 (2001/C 26 E/067) P-0514/00 by Marianne Thyssen to the Commission Subject: Compensation for cocoa-producing farmers ...... 53 (2001/C 26 E/068) E-0517/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Environmental health failures in Frankfurt (former US housing) ...... 54 (2001/C 26 E/069) E-0520/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Environmentally-damaging agricultural practices in the Almenara marshlands (area protected under the LIFE programme) ...... 55 (2001/C 26 E/070) E-0521/00 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Rules on the manufacture of lint to be used for medicinal purposes ...... 56 (2001/C 26 E/071) E-0524/00 by Giovanni Pittella, Joan Colom i Naval, Paulo Casaca, Vincenzo Lavarra and Georges Garot to the Commission Subject: Protecting European nut production ...... 57 (2001/C 26 E/072) E-0525/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Iron Rhine ...... 58 (2001/C 26 E/073) P-0526/00 by Gary Titley to the Commission Subject: Harmonisation of veterinary medicines and pesticide product licensing ...... 59 (2001/C 26 E/074) E-0548/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: World Cup tickets ...... 60 (2001/C 26 E/075) E-0552/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Compliance with the environmental protection laws with regard to the Mugello borrow pit ...... 61 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 26 E/076) E-0564/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Tax on profits ...... 62 (2001/C 26 E/077) E-0569/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Council secrecy ...... 63 (2001/C 26 E/078) E-0571/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Accountability ...... 63 (2001/C 26 E/079) E-0572/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Transparency ...... 63 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0569/00, E-0571/00 and E-0572/00 ...... 64 (2001/C 26 E/080) E-0578/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Taxing aviation kerosene ...... 64 (2001/C 26 E/081) E-0584/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: European sustainable transport policy ...... 65 (2001/C 26 E/082) E-0585/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: European sustainable transport policy ...... 66 (2001/C 26 E/083) E-0586/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: European sustainable transport policy ...... 67 (2001/C 26 E/084) E-0590/00 by Giles Chichester to the Council Subject: EBRD loans to Russian energy companies ...... 67 (2001/C 26 E/085) E-0602/00 by Giovanni Pittella to the Commission Subject: Outbreak of avian influenza in some parts of Italy ...... 68 (2001/C 26 E/086) E-0603/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Setting up the Southwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation ...... 69 (2001/C 26 E/087) P-0604/00 by Mario Mauro to the Commission Subject: Budget heading B7-6000 ...... 69 (2001/C 26 E/088) E-0607/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: EU social and economic protection cover for Malaga’s shellfishers ...... 70 (2001/C 26 E/089) E-0612/00 by Dirk Sterckx to the Commission Subject: Need for European regulations on the use of pesticides in horticulture ...... 71 (2001/C 26 E/090) E-0628/00 by Erik Meijer to the Council Subject: Kosovo: establishing the truth about the mass murders in Racak in January 1999, with reference to the report by Dr Helena Ranta, EU observer in Pristina ...... 72 (2001/C 26 E/091) E-0632/00 by María Ayuso González to the Commission Subject: Social and economic effects which the reduction in export refunds will have on the production and processing sectors ...... 73 (2001/C 26 E/092) E-0636/00 by Nelly Maes to the Council Subject: Repopulation of northern regions in Greece where minorities of Macedonian and Turkish origin are resident ...... 74 (2001/C 26 E/093) E-0637/00 by Nelly Maes to the Commission Subject: Recognition of Kurds as a minority and the accession of Turkey ...... 74 (2001/C 26 E/094) P-0639/00 by Joaquim Miranda to the Commission Subject: Natural disaster in Mozambique ...... 75 (2001/C 26 E/095) P-0643/00 by Sergio Berlato to the Commission Subject: Avian influenza ...... 77 (2001/C 26 E/096) E-0647/00 by Markus Ferber to the Commission Subject: The artificial lake ‘Lago di Lacina’ in Calabria ...... 79 (2001/C 26 E/097) E-0649/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya to the Commission Subject: Air transport liberalisation ...... 79 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 26 E/098) E-0652/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya to the Commission Subject: Air transport liberalisation ...... 80 (2001/C 26 E/099) E-0654/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the Commission Subject: European aid for victims of crime ...... 81 (2001/C 26 E/100) E-0657/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: The real economy and the financial economy ...... 81 (2001/C 26 E/101) E-0658/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Pollution of the Danube ...... 83 (2001/C 26 E/102) E-0659/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Sinking of the trading vessel ‘Zafir’ ...... 84 (2001/C 26 E/103) E-0660/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: The Galician companies Bazan and Astano in the merger of Spanish State shipyards ...... 84 (2001/C 26 E/104) P-0664/00 by Hubert Pirker to the Commission Subject: Minorities in the CEECs ...... 85 (2001/C 26 E/105) E-0670/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Borage honey and the 1976 honey regulations ...... 86 (2001/C 26 E/106) E-0689/00 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission Subject: Possible amendment of Article 105(6) of the EC Treaty ...... 86 (2001/C 26 E/107) E-0691/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Application of the Leader programme in the Autonomous Region of the Azores ...... 87 (2001/C 26 E/108) P-0693/00 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Effective depollution of the Thermaic Gulf environmental conditions for biological treatment ...... 88 (2001/C 26 E/109) E-0699/00 by John Bowis to the Commission Subject: Meetings between Commission officials and Patrick Peter ...... 90 (2001/C 26 E/110) E-0703/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: The European Union and the genocide in Chechnya ...... 90 (2001/C 26 E/111) E-0707/00 by Andre Brie to the Council Subject: Council’s position regarding media reports of extremely serious human rights violations, notably murder, torture, rape and looting, by Russian forces in Chechnya ...... 91

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0703/00 and E-0707/00 ...... 91 (2001/C 26 E/112) E-0708/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Designation of the Danube water-meadows as a special conservation area under the flora and fauna habitats directive ...... 92 (2001/C 26 E/113) E-0715/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Third-country resident ethnic entrepreneurs ...... 93 (2001/C 26 E/114) E-0718/00 by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez to the Commission Subject: 300 million cut in appropriations under heading 1 ...... 94 (2001/C 26 E/115) E-0720/00 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Distribution in the food industry ...... 95 (2001/C 26 E/116) E-0721/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Heavy pollution of the River Segura (Spain) ...... 96 (2001/C 26 E/117) E-0726/00 by Inger Schörling to the Commission Subject: Homeopathic medicines in stock farming ...... 97 (2001/C 26 E/118) E-0727/00 by Inger Schörling to the Commission Subject: Infringement of Directives 85/337/EC and 97/11/EC ...... 98 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 26 E/119) P-0730/00 by Massimo Carraro to the Commission Subject: Provisions in support of poultry breeders affected by avian influenza ...... 99 (2001/C 26 E/120) E-0737/00 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Removal of postal subsidies for Christian publications in Southern India ...... 100 (2001/C 26 E/121) E-0743/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: EIA and the definition of ‘wind farms’ ...... 101 (2001/C 26 E/122) E-0747/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Jobs reliant on EU membership ...... 102 (2001/C 26 E/123) E-0749/00 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Dutch legislation on termination of pregnancy ...... 103 (2001/C 26 E/124) E-0751/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Council Subject: Rome Convention ...... 103 (2001/C 26 E/125) E-0754/00 by Caroline Lucas to the Commission Subject: Harp seals ...... 104 (2001/C 26 E/126) E-0756/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Supply of tuna loins to the Community market ...... 104 (2001/C 26 E/127) E-0757/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Supply of tuna loins to the Community market ...... 105 (2001/C 26 E/128) E-0758/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Supply of tuna loins to the Community market ...... 105 (2001/C 26 E/129) E-0759/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Supply of tuna steak to the Community market ...... 105 (2001/C 26 E/130) E-0760/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Supply of tuna steak to the Community market ...... 105 (2001/C 26 E/131) E-0761/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Supply of tuna steak to the Community market ...... 106 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0756/00, E-0757/00, E-0758/00, E-0759/00, E-0760/00 and E-0761/00 ...... 106 (2001/C 26 E/132) E-0762/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the Commission Subject: Humanitarian aid to the people of Eritrea ...... 107 (2001/C 26 E/133) P-0767/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Projects in support of democracy and minority rights in Turkey ...... 108 (2001/C 26 E/134) P-0768/00 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Misleading of Brussels by the Netherlands authorities ...... 109 (2001/C 26 E/135) P-0788/00 by Marianne Thyssen to the Commission Subject: Contamination of Dutch dairy products ...... 109

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0768/00 and P-788/00 ...... 110 (2001/C 26 E/136) P-0771/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the Council Subject: Opting out of cooperation ...... 110 (2001/C 26 E/137) E-0779/00 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Common commercial policy and the IGC ...... 111 (2001/C 26 E/138) P-0789/00 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: The Common Agricultural Policy ...... 111 (2001/C 26 E/139) E-0815/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Recite II administration ...... 112 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 26 E/140) E-0822/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone, Sergio Berlato and Sebastiano Musumeci to the Com- mission Subject: Blood oranges a peripheral market ...... 112 (2001/C 26 E/141) E-0824/00 by Ieke van den Burg to the Commission Subject: Access to Social Insurance (Additional Categories of Persons) Decree 1999 (Royal Decree of 24 December 1998): Exceptional Medical Expenses Act ...... 113 (2001/C 26 E/142) E-0825/00 by Ieke van den Burg to the Commission Subject: Refusal of private health insurers in the Netherlands to provide cover for frontier workers with compulsory insurance under the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ) ...... 114 (2001/C 26 E/143) E-0826/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Greyhound racing ...... 115 (2001/C 26 E/144) E-0919/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Greyhounds in Spain and Ireland ...... 116 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0826/00 and E-0919/00 ...... 116 (2001/C 26 E/145) P-0832/00 by Maurizio Turco to the Commission Subject: Clarification further to the answer to Oral Question H-0125/00 on internal competitions COM/TA/99, COM/TB/99, and COM/TC/99 ...... 116 (2001/C 26 E/146) E-0834/00 by Maria Berger to the Council Subject: Surveillance of international telecommunications ...... 118 (2001/C 26 E/147) E-0851/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Outlying regions ...... 119 (2001/C 26 E/148) E-0853/00 by Maria Carrilho to the Council Subject: Mozambique ...... 119 (2001/C 26 E/149) E-0854/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Discrimination against EU citizens in Italian banks ...... 120 (2001/C 26 E/150) E-0855/00 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: UK map for Structural Funds Objective 2 ...... 121 (2001/C 26 E/151) E-0863/00 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba to the Commission Subject: Compliance of the bylaws of Monte dei Paschi di Siena with the 1998 Law No 461 and with European legislation on the internal market and competition ...... 122 (2001/C 26 E/152) E-0869/00 by Brian Simpson to the Commission Subject: Minimum level of training for seafarers ...... 123 (2001/C 26 E/153) E-0873/00 by Alejandro Agag Longo to the Commission Subject: VAT ...... 124 (2001/C 26 E/154) E-0876/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Discrimination against extensive meat production in the Autonomous Region of the Azores by Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 ...... 125 (2001/C 26 E/155) E-0879/00 by Chris Davies to the Council Subject: EU initiatives on education in the Third World ...... 126 (2001/C 26 E/156) E-0885/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Projects financed under LIFE II ...... 126 (2001/C 26 E/157) P-0897/00 by Vincenzo Lavarra to the Commission Subject: Crisis in the citrus fruit sector in southern Italy ...... 127 (2001/C 26 E/158) E-0905/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Council Subject: Alteration of the cultural heritage in FYROM ...... 128 (2001/C 26 E/159) E-0909/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Subsidies under the CAP for cruelty to animals ...... 128 (2001/C 26 E/160) P-0910/00 by Margot Keßler to the Commission Subject: Aachen-Heerlen cross-border industrial estate ...... 129 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 26 E/161) E-0913/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Potentially dangerous developments on French farms ...... 130 (2001/C 26 E/162) E-0917/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Qualified majority voting ...... 131 (2001/C 26 E/163) E-0921/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Ad hoc working party on tax fraud ...... 132 (2001/C 26 E/164) E-0924/00 by Joan Colom i Naval to the Council Subject: Stockholm Declaration on education about the Holocaust ...... 132 (2001/C 26 E/165) E-0932/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: Violations of the Treaty by the French and Belgian governments ...... 133 (2001/C 26 E/166) P-0953/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Supply of tuna loins to the European fish-canning industry ...... 134 (2001/C 26 E/167) E-0959/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Municipal hotel tax ...... 134 (2001/C 26 E/168) E-0966/00 by Esko Seppänen to the Commission Subject: Health effects of mobile telephones ...... 135 (2001/C 26 E/169) E-0973/00 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Council Subject: Relations between the European Union and Iran ...... 136 (2001/C 26 E/170) E-0975/00 by Christel Fiebiger to the Commission Subject: Savings to be made in Subsection B1 Agriculture of the 2001 budget and modification of the financial planning for 2000-2006 ...... 136 (2001/C 26 E/171) P-0987/00 by Jo Leinen to the Commission Subject: List of provisions for which unanimity is still required (reference: annex to the Commission’s opinion of 26 January 2000 concerning the Intergovernmental Conference) ...... 137 (2001/C 26 E/172) P-0988/00 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Waste water and small creameries ...... 138 (2001/C 26 E/173) E-0992/00 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler to the Commission Subject: ’Pôles de développement rural’ (PPDR) (DG VIII development project in Cameroon) ...... 139 (2001/C 26 E/174) E-0993/00 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Council Subject: Procedures for implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) ...... 140 (2001/C 26 E/175) E-0994/00 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Commission Subject: Procedures for implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) ...... 141 (2001/C 26 E/176) E-0997/00 by Neil MacCormick to the Council Subject: International trade victims of the banana war ...... 141 (2001/C 26 E/177) E-1009/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Vocational training or welfare ...... 142 (2001/C 26 E/178) E-1013/00 by Andre Brie to the Council Subject: Fatalities and injuries at the European Union’s external borders in 1997-1999 ...... 143 (2001/C 26 E/179) E-1020/00 by Lucio Manisco to the Commission Subject: Five cases of torture and violation of human rights in Turkey ...... 144 (2001/C 26 E/180) P-1025/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Council Subject: Council’s contradictory attitude to ending the boycott on Austria ...... 145 (2001/C 26 E/181) P-1026/00 by Luís Queiró to the Council Subject: Angola ...... 146 (2001/C 26 E/182) P-1028/00 by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso to the Commission Subject: Breach of Articles 2(4) and 6(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam ...... 147 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 26 E/183) E-1037/00 by Francesco Speroni to the Commission Subject: Intellectual property rights and human genetic material ...... 147 (2001/C 26 E/184) E-1054/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Council Subject: Cyprus ...... 148 (2001/C 26 E/185) E-1056/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Council Subject: Cyprus ...... 149 (2001/C 26 E/186) E-1062/00 by Karl von Wogau to the Commission Subject: Tax on the entry of yachts and powerboats into Greek waters ...... 150 (2001/C 26 E/187) E-1069/00 by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso to the Council Subject: Breach of Articles 2(4) and 6(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam ...... 150 (2001/C 26 E/188) E-1071/00 by Joan Colom i Naval to the Commission Subject: Effectiveness of OLAF in combating ESF fraud in Catalonia ...... 151 (2001/C 26 E/189) P-1073/00 by Gary Titley to the Commission Subject: Euratom loans to the applicant countries ...... 152 (2001/C 26 E/190) E-1077/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Terms and conditions to which several Italian credit institutions subject their current account-holders . . 153 (2001/C 26 E/191) E-1091/00 by Inger Schörling to the Commission Subject: Freedom of movement for EU officials ...... 154 (2001/C 26 E/192) P-1097/00 by Malcolm Harbour to the Commission Subject: Disposal of Rover Cars by BMW ...... 155 (2001/C 26 E/193) E-1112/00 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Reimbursement of non-business expenditure under the 1994 UK VAT Act ...... 156 (2001/C 26 E/194) E-1120/00 by Lucio Manisco to the Commission Subject: Imprisonment of Arkin Birdal and the judgment against Necmettin Erkaban in Turkey ...... 156 (2001/C 26 E/195) E-1181/00 by Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: Conservation of the district of San Lorenzo in Florence ...... 157 (2001/C 26 E/196) E-1185/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Tax burden on single persons ...... 157 (2001/C 26 E/197) P-1189/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the Commission Subject: Penalties for the use of toxic products on Spanish oranges ...... 158 (2001/C 26 E/198) E-1219/00 by Alonso Puerta to the Commission Subject: Safety of workers in Spanish tunnels ...... 159 (2001/C 26 E/199) P-1236/00 by Giuseppe Nisticò to the Council Subject: Medicinal herbs and plants ...... 160 (2001/C 26 E/200) E-1254/00 by Armando Cossutta to the Council Subject: Murder of the Irish lawyer, Rosemary Nelson ...... 161 (2001/C 26 E/201) E-1313/00 by Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: Suitability of tender documents for a contract concerning the supply of work clothes for the Italian postal workers ...... 162 (2001/C 26 E/202) P-1344/00 by Jean-Louis Bernié to the Commission Subject: The Commission’s challenging of the principle of ‘assumption of employment’ for performing artists laid down in Article L 762-1 of the French Labour Code ...... 163 (2001/C 26 E/203) P-1392/00 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the Commission Subject: Cross-subsidisation and State support in the postal industry ...... 164 (2001/C 26 E/204) P-1393/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the Commission Subject: Cross-subsidisation and State support in the postal industry ...... 165 Joint answer to Written Questions P-1392/00 and P-1393/00 ...... 165 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 26 E/205) P-1445/00 by Arlene McCarthy to the Commission Subject: Sport and the EU Treaties ...... 166 (2001/C 26 E/206) E-1530/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange to the Commission Subject: Protection of families and children ...... 166 (2001/C 26 E/207) E-1531/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange to the Commission Subject: Protection of families and children ...... 166 (2001/C 26 E/208) E-1532/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange to the Commission Subject: Protection of families and children ...... 167 (2001/C 26 E/209) E-1533/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange to the Commission Subject: Protection of families and children ...... 167 (2001/C 26 E/210) E-1534/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange to the Commission Subject: Protection of families and children ...... 167 (2001/C 26 E/211) E-1535/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange to the Commission Subject: Protection of families and children ...... 168 (2001/C 26 E/212) E-1536/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange to the Commission Subject: Protection of families and children ...... 168 (2001/C 26 E/213) E-1537/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange to the Commission Subject: Protection of families and children ...... 168 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1530/00, E-1531/000, E-1532/00, E-1533/00, E-1534/00, E-1535/00, E-1536/00 and E-1537/00 ...... 169 (2001/C 26 E/214) P-1581/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: European City of Culture ...... 169 (2001/C 26 E/215) E-1636/00 by Pedro Marset Campos to the Commission Subject: Lack of job security and industrial accidents in Spain and in the region of Murcia ...... 169 (2001/C 26 E/216) E-1668/00 by Christoph Konrad to the Commission Subject: Discriminatory ‘entry tax’ in Greek waters ...... 170 (2001/C 26 E/217) E-1810/00 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: The provision of public toilets throughout the EU ...... 171 (2001/C 26 E/218) E-1822/00 by Jean-Claude Fruteau to the Commission Subject: Follow-up to the Lisbon European Council decision on the outermost regions ...... 171 (2001/C 26 E/219) P-2009/00 by Joan Colom i Naval to the Commission Subject: Siphoning off of European social fund resources in Catalonia ...... 171

EN 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/1

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2001/C 26 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1827/99 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(13 October 1999)

Subject: Structural aid for private firms’ marketing and staff training

What will the Commission do to prevent the distortion of competition and waste of EU resources which are caused by the EU’s subsidising of private firms’ marketing, in-house training and rationalisation measures?

This week, the Danish press has reported that EU structural fund aid has been granted to Danish firms for the training of private-sector staff, company rationalisation and advertising campaigns.

It has caused astonishment that individual firms, with the aid of consultants versed in the formulations and key words which persuade the EU’s administration to grant money, have obtained such subsidies. The funds are allocated to firms entirely at random, thereby distorting competition. I have received a 16-page pamphlet of advertising from the Landsforeningen af Danske Plantehandlere (the national Danish association of plant traders), 1 230 000 copies of which have been distributed, i.e. one to practically every household in Denmark. Household-distributed printed matter is one form of squandering resources that many members of the public wish to restrict. This pamphlet bears the EU’s logo and the caption ‘Campaign funded with the aid of the European Community’.

The structural aid allocated to Denmark is very limited and there are far more provocative examples of the absurd use of structural fund aid in those countries which receive massive subsidies. If the EU granted aid to improve basic education in Denmark or to expand facilities for training doctors at our universities, that would undoubtedly make a positive impression on the Danish people but to hand out European taxpayers’ money at random to private firms is a provocation which highlights the fact that the Commission is not complying with EU rules designed to avoid distortion of competition and is not interested in what it gets for the money but merely aims to ensure that the funds are used up.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Preventing distortion of competition, waste and misuse of Community resources in the structural funds is a key priority for the Community and therefore of course also for the Commission. C 26 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

The aid provided by the structural funds is administered in accordance with competition policy. For example aid can be given to investments but not to operational aid, there are special rules for supporting small and medium sized enterprises and there are restrictions in terms of eligible areas.

Furthermore, the funds are managed in a decentralised way in accordance with national and Community rules on financial management and control.

With regard to the actions supported by the structural funds the Member States have agreed that the promoting of new productive investments is a priority in order to generate incomes and new jobs in the weaker regions.

Finally, in order to maximise the effects of the structural fund interventions the Member States have decided to lay down provision for the kind of assistance the individual regions can receive. These provisions prevent objective 2 funding (which Denmark has received in the period 1994-1999 in regions of North Jutland and Lolland) to be used for co-financing investments in basic education infrastructures because the objective 2 regions are relatively well equipped in this regard already. Basic educational infrastructure can therefore only be co-financed by the structural funds in the weakest regions of the Community (objective 1 regions).

(2001/C 26 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2183/99 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Committees and working parties in the field of law

Will the Commission say what committees, working parties etc. have been set up in the field of law in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The Commission understands, following a contact with the Honourable Member, that this question concerns justice and home affairs committees and working parties.

The existing programmes in the fields of justice and home affairs (OISIN (1), Falcone (2), STOP (3), Grotius (4) and Odysseus (5)) are implemented through committees managed by the Commission. These committees have their legal basis in the joint actions adopted by the Council which established the programmes themselves. Their aim is to assist the Commission in carrying out the measures provided for in the joint actions. They consist of one representative from each Member State and are chaired by the Commission.

So far as the Honourable Member’s question concerns committees and working parties set up by and assisting the Council, these are not within the competence of the Commission, and the Honourable Member is invited to address his question to the Council.

(1) OJ L 7, 10.1.1997. (2) OJ L 99, 31.3.1998. (3) OJ L 322, 12.12.1996. (4) OJ L 287, 8.11.1996. (5) OJ L 99, 31.3.1998. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/3

(2001/C 26 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2216/99 by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Application of the principle of the free movement of services (Article 49 of the EC Treaty) with regard to the rules on the personal use of satellite dishes

The use of satellite dishes to receive television and radio programmes and information society services is constantly on the increase.

They are an important cross-border vehicle for European economic and cultural integration, particularly for those living abroad who wish to obtain information from their countries of origin in order to ensure that their ties to their homeland remain strong.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms enshrines the right to impart and receive information.

Furthermore, the Commission has recently begun infringement proceedings against a Member State in order to have it abolish a number of fiscal and administrative charges relating to the personal use of satellite dishes.

Several Member States are also drawing up legislation on the use of such dishes.

Some general benchmarks should, however, be established; these must be sufficiently clear to reconcile the principle of the free movement of services within the single market with the need to safeguard town- planning objectives in order to minimise and control the impact of satellite dishes in aesthetic and architectural terms, especially near towns or areas containing monuments of historic and artistic interest.

In the light of the above, would the Commission not consider it useful and indeed advisable to draw up some guidelines (e.g. via explanatory documents based on previous texts of a similar kind) to clarify the scope and effects of the fundamental principle of the free movement of services within the single market (Article 49 of the EC Treaty) in relation to the regulation of the use of satellite dishes? This would not only steer national legislators and local administrators in the right direction and facilitate their decisions whilst ensuring compliance with Community law, but would also give individual users of satellite dishes, and consequently all those operating in the field, greater legal certainty.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission considers the question raised by the Honourable Member to be an important one in the light of growing use of satellite dishes for the reception of eminently cross-border services such as broadcasting services and information society services transmitted by satellite.

It is precisely with this in mind that the Commission has, over the last few years, initiated infringement proceedings against certain Member States for tax and administrative barriers to the individual use of satellite dishes.

These infringement proceedings, some of which are still under way, have targeted the obligation laid down in some countries’ regulatory provisions generally adopted at local level to make the installation of each dish subject to administrative authorisation or to payment of an annual tax, and a particularly high one at that.

As it has already declared publicly (1), the Commission considers that, because of their discriminatory and, in any event, disproportionate nature, these measures are incompatible with the fundamental principle of free movement of services within the internal market, as laid down by Article 49 (former Article 59) of the EC Treaty. C 26 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

However, it does recognise the possibility, as pointed out by the Honourable Member, that, in certain circumstances, specific grounds of historical and artistic protection should also be taken into consideration by the national authorities, while of course meeting the criteria of non-discrimination, necessity and proportionality, in accordance with the Court of Justice’s consistent case law on the free movement of services.

In the light of these considerations and the keen interest shown by the public in these infringement proceedings, the Commission will seriously consider the suggestion made by the Honourable Member that a document be prepared in the near future to clarify, for the benefit of the interested parties (users, operators and national authorities), the scope and effects of Article 49 with regard to the use of satellite dishes.

It should also be noted that the Commission recently adopted a communication on the strategy for Europe’s internal market which did in fact stress the outlook for the digital era and the promotion of consumers’ economic interests (2).

(1) IP/99/281 of 3 May 1999. (2) COM(1999) 624 final.

(2001/C 26 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2226/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Internet access

What is the percentage of households in each Member State which have access to the Internet at the most recent date, and what was the similar percentage one year, two years and three years previously? If it is possible to indicate what proportion of households have access at home and what proportion through their place of work, please do so.

(2001/C 26 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2229/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Internet advertising trends

What is the amount spent on advertising on the Internet in each Member State, and what was spent one year, two years, and three years before?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2226/99 and E-2229/99 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

There are no official consolidated Community figures available, either for styles of Internet access or for Internet advertising revenues. This is due to the very dramatic growth in the level of Internet usage and to the speed of change in the form of usage.

There are figures available from a variety of other sources which provide an idea of the growth and geographical distribution of Internet usage. The different sources however often provide quite different estimates even when referring to the same country. Even from the same source the figures may not indeed even be comparable year to year because the methodologies are changed and as what is being monitored continues to change constantly. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/5

The ITU (www.itu.int) has produced figures that underline the impressive growth at the global level:

(%)

Compound annual growth rate 1990-1998 Telephone lines 6 Mobile subscribers 52 Internet hosts 81

Years taken to reach 50 million users Years Telephone 74 Radio 38 PC 16 Television 13 WWW 4

Nua Ltd. in Ireland (www.unua.ie) provides a useful consolidation of various industry estimates related to the Internet. They provide estimates for usage and for advertising revenue, from a number of sources.

GlobalReach in California (glreach.com) gives Internet usage figures in terms of the distribution between countries. However it is interesting to note that they give prominence in their analysis to linguistic groupings rather than national boundaries (i.e. to French-speakers rather than France, to Portuguese- speakers rather than Portugal).

GVU (www.gvu.gatech.edu) has various figures related to the primary place of access to the Internet workplace, home, etc. in Europe.

(2001/C 26 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2412/99 by Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: The Murcia region and the ERDF

By Decision C(94) 2586/3 the Commission approved the operational programme for tackling the specific problems of the Murcia region, with the intention of making its economy more competitive by setting up development areas which would allow the economic fabric to be modernised and diversified and attract investment, while guaranteeing the protection of the environment.

Will the Commission supply full details of

1. all the subsidies and funding made available pursuant to this Decision in the field of education and training, and

2. all the recipients of these monies?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The global grant from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the operational programme (OP) for the Murcia region for the programming period 1994-1999 (1) is € 542,74 million C 26 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Subprogramme 7 of this OP, ‘Development of human resources’, provides for investment of € 32,31 million in the construction and improvement of education and training centres.

The breakdown of aid by measure is as follows:

Body Number of projects Primary and infant education Ministry of Education 73 Secondary education and vocational training Ministry of Education 30 University infrastructure Ministry of Education 10 Art education Ministry of Education 2 Educational and training equipment Autonomous Community 13

A detailed list of the recipients of the aid is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat.

(1) Decision C(94) 2586/3.

(2001/C 26 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2439/99 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Protection of European companies in Kosovo

In reply to my oral question H-0608/99 of 16 November 1999 (1) to the Commission concerning protection of the interests of European Union companies in Kosovo, Commissioner Patten indicated that he had no information concerning pressure being brought to bear or threats being made against European companies in Kosovo. To fill the gaps in his information concerning the subject, I personally gave him a copy of correspondence between the ‘Mytilinaios’ company and Mr Kouchner and Mr Dixon. I also asked him to investigate the current situation regarding the functioning of telecommunications in Kosovo in order to obtain a full picture.

Effective communications between the European Parliament and the Commission will help to protect the interests of the EU wherever they may be under threat. The sovereign rights of European companies are currently what is at stake in Kosovo. The Greek Telecommunications Organisation (OTE) and the Italian STET International, which have respectively a 20 % and 29 % holding in Srbija Telekom, are suffering losses as a result of non-payment of fees to Srbija Telekom for use of telecommunications services in Kosovo, while, at the same time, the UCK and its covert supporters are insisting on the restoration by the two companies of the damaged network and its subsequent nationalisation by Albania, in violation of international agreements. However the most serious breach of the law occurred recently when a ‘special committee’ made up of UN representatives and Kosovar Albanians quite illegally transferred mobile telephony rights to the French company Alcatel. These rights are the exclusive property of the OTE and STET International, in accordance with international agreements currently in force, which state that Kosovo is part of the key area in which these two companies are entitled to operate and export their profits.

What action will the Commission take to protect the legitimate rights of European companies in Kosovo which at this moment are under threat by illegal networks in which even UN officials are starting to be involved, contrary to their instructions regarding observance of the law in this area?

(1) Verbatim report of proceedings of 16.11.1999, p. 60. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/7

Supplementary answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for again drawing its attention to the question of the legal protection of European companies in Kosovo and for having forwarded extra documentation on this sensitive subject.

The protection of legal rights of companies in Kosovo is a question falling under the direct competence of the United Nations interim administration mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) according to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999). The complete file concerning the issue is in the possession of UNMIK, which is the only entity in a position to make valid proposals for the requested action.

(2001/C 26 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2653/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Events at Malpensa

In order to forestall the accusation that the decrees of 5 July 1996 and 13 October 1997 transferring all flights from Linate to Malpensa did not comply with the provisions of Community law, an Italian Government decree provided that 34 % of European flights would remain at Linate until access infrastructure had been fully completed and notification had been received that the work was finished.

Is the Commission aware of the inconveniences which users of the Malpensa hub still experience, especially through the lack of suitable buildings, the fact that the train shuttle still does not serve terminal 2, forcing passengers to drag their baggage along and to use the taxi or bus shuttle service between terminals 1 and 2 (services that stop, what is more, at a certain time of day) and the fact that there are still not even enough baggage-trolleys, all of which confirm the need to guarantee the survival of Linate as an airport providing connections to the 15 Member State capitals? How does it view the fact that the Italian Government has not yet sent the information which the Commission had asked to receive by 15 November?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

The Commission has paid and continues to pay special attention to the situation concerning Malpensa airport, particularly as regards access and airport infrastructures. This issue is closely linked with the problem of Italian traffic distribution rules for the various airports of the Milanese airport system complying with Community law.

The Commission, with the help of specialised consultants, carried out several in-depth inspections in 1998 and 1999 of the state of the above infrastructures, particularly concerning their suitability for the volume of traffic that was due to move to Malpensa when the above-mentioned traffic distribution rules were applied. The Commission used the information from these sources to intervene in 1998, declaring the immediate application of the rules which were initially adopted as incompatible with Community law (1). The Italian authorities took the results of the inspections on board and decided to delay applying the rules until October 1999, subsequently delayed to December 1999.

The Italian authorities responded to the inspections carried out by specialist consultants by deciding in October 1999 to undertake work and improvements, particularly focusing on aspects of airport infrastructure (providing additional departure gates, implementing an Apron Management Control system, C 26 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

improving the capacity for luggage and passport control etc.). Contrary to the view held by the honourable Member, the Italian authorities have indeed sent the information which the Commission had asked to receive on carrying out work and improvements. The Commission is currently checking this information.

(1) Commission Decision of 16 September 1998 on a procedure relating to the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (Case VII/AMA/11/98 Italian traffic distribution rules for the airport system of Milan). OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.

(2001/C 26 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2735/99 by Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Free entry to museums for Community citizens between the ages of 55 and 65

Cultural tourism among the 55- to 65-year old age group in Europe is a source of cultural enrichment, a healthy way of using free time and a source of many new jobs.

Does the Commission intend to issue a directive to boost this type of tourism and to make it more accessible?

In addition, can the Commission ask the Italian minister Mr Melandri to amend the regulation published in the Italian Official Journal No 253, 27.10.1999, which restricts free entry to monuments, museums, archaeological sites, and parks etc. to those over the age of 65, so that it includes Community citizens between the ages of 55 and 65?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the importance of cultural tourism as a source of potential job creation. However, there is no intention to issue a directive on this matter.

The question of the age group benefiting from free entry to cultural attractions in Italy is a matter for the Member State itself, following the principle of subsidiarity.

(2001/C 26 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2750/99 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Turtles, nature conservation and accession: Cyprus

1. Is the Commission aware of the debate in Cyprus about the protection of the Akamas Peninsula, which is an important nesting area for sea turtles? These turtle species include vulnerable and endangered species, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) list. Has the Commission been informed about measures to protect Akamas which were approved by the Cypriot Parliament in 1998, but have not yet been accepted by the Cabinet of Ministers? Is the Commission also aware of the fact that hotel development in the area has meanwhile continued?

2. In view of the upcoming accession of Cyprus, has the Commission entered into discussions regarding the suitability of the Akamas Peninsula, and particularly that the Asprokremmos, Lara and Toxeftra beaches be included in the Natura 2000 network of protected sites, established under the Habitats and Birds Directives (resp. 92/43 (1) of 21 May 1992 and 79/409 (2) of 2 April 1979)? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/9

3. Will the Commission advise the Cypriot authorities to designate these areas, should the Cypriot authorities omit to propose their inclusion in the Natura 2000 network?

4. Has Cyprus received funds from other Community programmes? If so, under what funding programmes have these funds been provided, and what steps have been taken to integrate environmental aspects into the activities funded, as required by the Treaty?

5. Can the Commission guarantee that no Community funds are being allocated to projects that may result in further damage to the situation in the above mentioned areas?

6. What instruments will the Commission use in order to protect the loggerhead turtle (caretta caretta) and the green turtle (Chelinia mydas) in the above mentioned areas?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behal of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

1. The Commission has followed with interest the issue of the Akamas Peninsula in Cyprus as an important nesting ground for two rare species of sea turtle. The Cypriot authorities have informed the Commission that there is legislation in Cyprus affording environmental protection to the Akamas Peninsula, and that there has not been recent hotel development in the protected area. The Commission is not aware of new measures awaiting approval by the Cabinet of Ministers.

2. and 3. As part of the preparations for accession, and as recalled in the negotiations on the environment chapter, the Commission is awaiting the proposed list of sites to be designated as special areas of conservation (SAC) for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network as foreseen by Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive). An ongoing project under the LIFE programme is assisting the Cypriot authorities in this task. The Commission, fully aware of the sensitivity of the Akamas Peninsula, will examine these proposals in accordance with the relevant criteria of the Directive.

4. and 5. In the early 1990s the Commission funded a turtle conservation project under the Medspa programme. There have been a number of other Community-supported projects in Cyprus with an environmental content, e.g. in the areas of controlling industrial pollution, and sewerage. The Commission does not finance projects that to the best of its knowledge run contrary to the environmental acquis. The candidate countries have also been reminded of the Council conclusions of 24 September 1998 on accession strategies for the environment, in which it was stated that all new investment should comply with the environmental acquis.

6. Once Cyprus becomes a Member State, the relevant legal instrument will be the Habitats Directive, as both species of turtle appear in its annexes. In the meantime the Commission will monitor Cyprus’ commitment to the progressive introduction and implementation of the acquis, and the strengthening of the relevant administrative structures. This will be achieved through the various instruments of the pre- accession strategy.

(2001/C 26 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2756/99 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Regulation of the poultry sector

The problems which have affected the poultry sector in some regions of the Union over the past year have brought about a change in the public’s pattern of consumption, and the resulting surplus supply has C 26 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

brought the price of chicken down to a level below production costs, which is damaging production areas which had nothing to do with recent scandals.

In view of the consequent losses confronting the sector and the calls made by poultry producers for the sector to be reorganised in such a way as to restrict numbers of breeding hens, has the Commission taken or will it take action to respond to this request and mitigate the crisis which this situation has caused?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

The difficulties encountered by the Spanish poultry sector in 1999 do not appear to be the direct result of the fall in consumption caused by the dioxin crisis. The difficulties have instead been caused by the increase in poultry meat production in Spain in 1999 compared to 1998.

Indeed, the Spanish poultry industry estimates that production increased between 1998 and 1999 by about 15 % because the profitable results recorded at the end of 1998 brought about a drop in prices from the beginning of 1999, well before the dioxin crisis. That crisis then had an additional effect on the Spanish market for poultry meat from June 1999 on.

As regards the issue of production surpluses since early 1999, the common organisation of the market in poultry meat excludes stabilisation measures, such as public intervention on the market. The poultry sector itself must match supply to demand while complying with the Community rules on competition.

The Commission can only support the Community market through export aids intended to bring it into balance. These measures are subject to the restrictions laid down by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Despite these restrictions, however, the Commission introduced export refunds in the summer of 1999 for destinations other than the ones usually laid down, in order to facilitate exports from all Community regions.

(2001/C 26 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2798/99 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Extension of the lorry depot at the customs post of S. Andrea, in the province of Gorizia (Italy), despite the Slovenia’s forthcoming entry into the EU

The local government of Gorizia intends to carry out further work to extend the lorry depot facilities at the Italian customs post in the district of S. Andrea, on the border with Slovenia, despite the unfavourable opinion of all the parties involved (the neighbourhood council, various organisations and the population, which is in favour of breaking away from the commune of Gorizia) and despite Slovenia’s imminent entry into the European Union.

The city council has signed an agreement with the communes of Nova Gorica and Vrtojba on the other side of the border, which makes provision for projects and funding for alternative facilities;

The customs formalities and facilities will therefore have to be abolished;

The lorry depot facilities are already underused, despite the occasional demand for back-up facilities;

The area concerned which has been invaded for some years by the mass of concrete structures involved in the lorry depot is the historic site of a Slovenian-speaking community, which has seen its territory reduced by more than half, 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/11

In view of these facts:can the Commission say whether the projects involved in the extension of the lorry depot facilities envisaged by the authorities of Gorizia at the customs post are sustainable and compatible with the pre-accession phase and Slovenia’s entry into the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

The extension of the lorry depot in the customs post of S. Andrea, in the province of Gorizia, concerns mainly infrastructure and, from a customs point of view, is not incompatible with the implementation of the customs acquis, with the pre-accession strategy in the customs field, nor with the possible accession of Slovenia to the Union.

On the compatibility of the measure with the existing agreement between Gorizia and Nova Goriza, the Commission has no competence.

(2001/C 26 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2846/99 by Michel Raymond (EDD) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Article 30(1) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 (forestry support)

Article 30(1) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1) of 17 May 1999 states that support for forestry applies to the processing of forestry products and (in the next line) that investment related to the use of wood as a raw material shall be limited to working operations prior to industrial processing.

This constitutes an ambiguity which makes the European Union’s position vis-à-vis its support for the processing of forestry products incomprehensible.

Could the Commission clarify its position with regard to this important matter?

Does this mean that support for the first stage of timber processing (the work of sawmills) will be discontinued?

If so, such a decision would deal a severe blow to the development of the timber trade in several European countries at a time when the latter’s economic impact is constantly increasing.

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

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Article 30 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, to which the Honourable Member refers, restricts support from the EAGGF for investment in improving and rationalising the harvesting, processing and marketing of wood as a raw material to operations prior to industrial processing. The Honourable Member has interpreted the Regulation correctly in saying that first stage timber processing is excluded.

This is not a change in Community policy. The activities of sawmills have not been part-financed by the EAGGF since approval in 1990 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 867/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for forestry products (1).

Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 does not abandon the timber industry activities previously financed by the EAGGF. On the contrary the same criteria continue to apply. C 26 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

There is nothing to stop Member States proposing a State aid scheme for certain timber industry activities under specific circumstances. Schemes in Objective 1 and 2 area could be part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) if proposed under a regional development programme.

(1) OJ L 191, 6.4.1990.

(2001/C 26 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0061/00 by Josu Ortuondo Larrea (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Extension of the franchises of private motorway operators in Spain

By means of an amendment to the draft law accompanying the year 2000 budget the Spanish Congress has recently allowed motorway franchises to be extended before the initial period of operation for which they were granted comes to an end. This applies inter alia to the franchises held by Aumar (13 years), Acesa (5 years) and Iberpista. In addition, the government is drawing up a royal decree which will allow the franchise on the León-Campomanes motorway to be extended by a further 29 years. Extensions are justified on the grounds that they will lead to lower toll charges and further investment.

Francisco Sosa Wagner, who is Professor of Administrative Law at the University of León, takes the view that franchises should be extended only if there are guarantees to the effect that the extra business which they bring to private operators will result in benefits to the general public (1). Furthermore, the reductions in toll charges must be genuine ones (not fictitious or merely apparent) and the interests of the consumer must be paramount.

Does the Commission know whether or not the extensions granted by the Spanish authorities are in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Directives 92/50/EC (2), 93/37/EC (3) and 89/440/EC (4) on the coordination of the procedures for awarding public services and works contracts?

If not, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that the Spanish authorities comply with the above directives and to ensure that the interests of consumers prevail in any assessment of the benefits stemming from toll motorway management policy in Spain?

Does the Commission think that the reductions in charges which have been used to justify the extensions are genuine ones and that consumers have therefore benefitted from the operation?

Does the Commission not think that a policy of extending motorway franchises in exchange for further investment in those motorways could run counter to Community guidelines which are intended to steer the transport system towards alternative, non-road forms of transport and that it could have an adverse effect on the drawing up of long-term national transport policy strategies?

(1) See opinion of October 1998, issued at the request of the Barcelona city authorities. (2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1. (3) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54. (4) OJ L 268, 15.9.1989, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The Commission has no knowledge of either the new legislation or the draft Royal Decree mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission will do everything necessary to verify that the Member State complies fully with the obligations arising from Community law, and the policy on public contracts in particular. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/13

(2001/C 26 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0090/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Milk quotas in Galicia

According to reports in the Galician press, a spokesman for and senior representative of the Commissioner responsible for Agriculture and Fisheries (namely, the recently appointed Director-General of Agriculture) has stated that Galicia is not going to be granted an increase in its milk quota and should just be grateful for its small share of the 550 000-tonne increase granted to Spain for this and subsequent years. This is in spite of the fact that he is well aware (as any senior Commission representative should be) that Galicia has a clearly inadequate milk quota and is therefore unable to modernise its agricultural sector without putting farms out of business which are potentially capable of reaching a productivity level similar to the European average, with the result that Galicia could achieve a production performance comparable with that of countries and regions such as Ireland and Brittany.

What rural development strategy could be followed by a region such as Galicia which is denied the opportunity to increase its milk production, even though that would be the principal and the most obvious and effective way for it to pursue regional development, notwithstanding the other forms of diversification which it is practising?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Regulation on rural development contains a series of measures to promote the adjustment and development of rural areas. However, it is not the Commission but rather the national or regional authorities responsible for drawing up the region’s development programme that propose the development strategy and the measures to implement that strategy in the medium term, taking account of the region’s particular socio-economic situation.

The Commission’s role is to examine whether the analysis made and the measures proposed constitute an adequate response to the region’s restructuring and conversion needs.

With regard to milk quotas, the Honourable Member is referred to the reply to his written question E-91/00 (1).

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000.

(2001/C 26 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0130/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Administration of OLAF

Will the Commission ensure that officials do not make public pronouncements on guilt when a national prosecuting authority has decided to drop its inquiries into a case begun at the prompting of UCLAF/ OLAF?

Will the Commission ensure that funding for approved projects may not be withheld simply because the Commission believes it has outstanding claims against other projects when no legal proceedings have begun to enforce its claim?

These questions relate to the Commission’s behaviour in the case against the ‘Nordvestjysk Folkecenter for Vedvarende Energi’ (North-West Jutland Renewable Energy Centre), which was publicly branded a fraud by a Commission official although the fraud squad in Denmark had concluded that there is no evidence for the accusations. C 26 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

The Commission has also blocked payments of a subsidy to a group of recipients, among which the Centre is only one party, and is thus punishing undertakings having absolutely no involvement in this case.

Supplementary answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Commission is not aware that one of its officials made a public statement on the matter of guilt in the case referred to by the Honourable Member.

However, the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) has informed the Commission that a statement was made by one of the Office’s officials on the fact that, in this case, an appeal had been lodged with the Prosecutor general in accordance with the provisions of the code of criminal procedure of Denmark against the decision by the Prosecutor not to press charges.

The Commission would point out that the matter of payments to beneficiaries is naturally assessed in the light of the protection of the Community’s financial interests.

Other payments to the same beneficiaries in cases vitiated by irregularities may be suspended where necessary, or they may be recovered by offsetting in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities and its implementing details (1), and the internal procedures relating to the recovery of entitlements under the EC and Euratom Treaties.

To date, no final decision has been taken in the case to which the Honourable Member refers.

(1) Commission Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977, OJ L 315, 16.12.1993.

(2001/C 26 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0176/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Municipality of Rome’s parking ban and levy of entry charge

For the Jubilee, the municipality of Rome has decided to prevent tourist coaches parking in the city and has also imposed an entry charge on them. This decision is certain to cause significant losses for tourist and transport firms.

Does the Commission not consider that the decision is also detrimental to non-Italian European tourist firms which had organised trips to Rome before the municipality’s decision?

How does the Commission intend to reply to the protest it has received from the BDO, the association of German coach operators?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

The closure of central Rome has prompted questions from various organisations. The Commission replied to the German Transport Association (BDO) by letter dated 18 January 2000 and is also preparing a reply 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/15

to a question from the German authorities. Having studied the dossier provided by the Italian authorities, and with regard to the restrictions placed on the movement of tourist coaches in the city centre, the Commission finds that the Italian authorities have not infringed Community law.

Given the large numbers of visitors expected in Rome during the year 2000 (around 29 million visitors, with between 2 000 and 2 500 coaches per day), the plan drawn up by the city authorities has several objectives. It is designed to conserve the city’s cultural and architectural heritage, protect the health and quality of life of the people of Rome and limit the already serious levels of pollution.

To this end, the city authorities are planning to divide the city into a number of zones, some of which will be off limits to all traffic. However, sites will be provided for tourist coaches, facilities will be organised for setting travellers down in the city centre, and city centre access control points will be set up at which coaches will be directed to specified parking areas. Exceptions will be made for certain categories of traveller, such as the handicapped. Measures will be taken to improve the city’s urban transport network and road signs. All the contracts for carrying out these measures will be awarded via invitation to tender so as to ensure transparency and the requisite competition.

These measures are in line with Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 11/98 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus, (2) and in particular Article 12, which allows local excursions to be carried out within the framework of an international service. It should be borne in mind that the main purpose of Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 is to regulate international transport. Local authorities’ policing powers allow them to regulate local traffic. The application of Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 is without prejudice to the application of this policing power as proposed by the City of Rome.

Accordingly, the Commission does not envisage initiating proceedings against Italy for infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92.

The plan submitted by the Italian authorities does not indicate the existence of an entry charge. In any event, as local taxes are not harmonised at Community level, the introduction of an entry charge on tourist coaches could not run counter to Community law unless it contained discriminatory provisions, such as the application of a higher charge for coaches from other Member States.

(1) OJ L 74, 20.3.1992. (2) OJ L 4, 8.1.1998.

(2001/C 26 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0187/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Dioxin scare and PVC

The WHO currently recommends that exposure should not top 1,4 TEQ/kg body weight per day, including dioxins and dioxin-like substances. In a recent report published on 30 November 1999, EU experts estimated the average dietary exposure for consumers within the EU to be as high as 2,6 TEQ/kg body weight per day. The average EU citizen therefore consumes more dioxin and dioxin-like substances than is acceptable according to the WHO. This means that the daily intake of these hazardous substances by the most vulnerable groups, such as babies and children, is clearly above the WHO recommendations. This situation has to changes as soon as possible.

Which measures does the Commission intend to take in order to reduce adverse health effects related to exposure to dioxins? C 26 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Can the Commission indicate, or give an estimate of, how the present situation could be improved with one of the following three alternatives: an EU-ban on soft PVCs, an EU ban on hard PVCs or an EU ban on all PVCs?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

The policy of the Commission to reduce adverse health effects related to dioxins focusses on reducing human exposure to these compounds (dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs).

More than 90 % of human exposure to dioxins derives from food, the rest being accounted for by inhalation from air and ingestion of particles from air, ingestion of contaminated soil and dermal absorption. Additionally, about 90 % of the exposure from food derives from foods of animal origin. The animals are themselves contaminated through feed and general environmental contamination.

Surveys of food contamination and consumption now appear to confirm a decrease in human exposure to dioxins of a factor of 2 to 3 between the 70’s 80’s and the late 90’s although some data gaps exist. The estimated average dietary exposure for consumers within the Community is currently in the range 1-3 pg TEQ/kg body weight/day. This does not include dioxin-like PCBs, which are estimated to contribute roughly 50 % of total dietary exposure measured as TEQs. If dioxin-like PCBs are taken into account, exposure could be in the range of 2-6 pg TEQ/kg body weight/day. The World Health Organisation currently recommends that exposure should not exceed 1-4 TEQ/kg body weight/day, including both dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs.

Further reductions in human exposure to dioxins will come from two fronts, firstly a reduction in the flow of dioxins into the food chain through new proposals to limit dioxin content of animal feed (limits on foodstuffs are also being examined) and secondly a further tightening of environmental emission standards. One concrete measure is the adoption of the proposed directive on the incineration of waste (1) foreseen for later this year. Further general reduction of emissions due to European environmental policy (e.g. through the progressive application of the IPPC directive) will also help improve the situation over the long term.

A ban on polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products would not have a direct effect on exposure to dioxins since PVC does not contain or release dioxins during use. PVC is the largest source of chlorine entering incinerators (50 %) and its contribution to the overall level of emissions of dioxins by waste incinerators has been at the centre of a major scientific debate. However, other waste streams (e.g. paper 11 %, putrescibles 17 %) also account for significant fractions of the chlorine entering waste incinerators and the new directive on the incineration of waste will considerably reduce the overall contribution of this source to dioxin emissions.

In order to reduce further the potential adverse health effects related to exposure to dioxins, the Commission has also been funding research on the risk of environmental dioxins. A project from the Fourth RTD framework programme has recently been completed (‘Risks of environmental dioxins: linking epidemiology with toxicity studies to strengthen accurate risk assessment’) and a new project (‘Compre- hensive risk analysis of dioxins: development of a methodology to assess genetic susceptibility to developmental disturbances and cancer’) has just been started. While the first study did not support the prevailing hypothesis that dioxins at present concentrations would be a risk factor for soft tissue sarcoma, it actually found that usual population background exposure to dioxins is associated with lower cancer risk than near zero concentrations. The objective of the new study is to set a scientifically defendable limit of safe exposure to dioxins, as to developmental effects and cancer.

(1) OJ C 372, 2.12.1998. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/17

(2001/C 26 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0191/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: European Union Subsidies

In cases where European Union subsidies have been obtained by means of fraudulent acts or declarations, or have been spent in an improper way, the Commission demands their repayment.

Could it provide details of the total amount of Community funds in respect of which repayment has been demanded to date, indicating the exact sums recovered in absolute terms and as a percentage of the overall total, as well as the identity and nationality of the beneficiaries from whom those monies have been recovered?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission requires beneficiaries to reimburse subsidies or other payments which they have obtained in a fraudulent manner or which they have not used in a way consistent with the decision awarding the subsidy or with the terms of a contract. With regard to the recovery, a distinction should be made between Community budget entitlements and the procedure for recovering indirect expenditure.

Community budget entitlements

How entitlements (other than own resources) are recovered is described in the ‘The revenue and expenditure account and financial balance sheet’, the 1998 version of which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat (figures for 1999 are not yet available).

However, since the main objective of the computerised management and reporting systems currently available is to facilitate the recovery of individual entitlements, no figures as such or percentages broken down by type of debtor can be provided. Future improvements in reporting as part of the Sincom2 accounting system should enable the Commission to streamline its statistics.

Recovery of indirect expenditure

In 1998 the clearance of CAP accounts for previous years produced € 654 820 948 (Item B1-3700) whilst the amounts recovered and other repayments (not including public storage operations) provided € 15 967 394 (B1-389 and B1-399) for the agricultural budget of the year.

Over the programming periods 1988-1993 and 1994-1999 € 7 693 442 granted under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was withdrawn on account of irregularities under 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 (1).

When the accounts relating to ERDF programmes or Cohesion Fund projects are closed, amounts granted may be withdrawn for various reasons connected with irregularities although the formal procedure for withdrawing assistance is not necessarily initiated.

Given the information systems available to the Commission, the amount of research needed to give a detailed answer to the Honourable Member’s questions would be disproportionate to the questions and would go beyond the framework of an answer to a written question.

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1998. C 26 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0203/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Customs stamps in non-Community countries

When customs stamps in non-Community countries are changed, the intervention bodies frequently withhold export refunds and guarantees, and European exporters are thus made responsible for events outside their control.

Will the Commission ensure that the responsibility for recording changes to official customs stamps in non-Community countries as they occur is borne by the authorities alone?

Will the Commission establish a set procedure with all non-Community countries for which there is an entitlement to refunds to ensure that all alterations in their customs stamps are reported to a central unit in Brussels for subsequent notification to the intervention bodies in the individual Member States?

Does the Commission believe that the actual usefulness of customs stamps which can be stolen, copied or illicitly used in other ways as a means of verification, is in reasonable proportion to their economic importance?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

When the rate of the refund is differentiated according to the destination of the products exported, Community legislation requires the recipient of the refund to provide proof that the product in question was imported into the non-member country for which the differentiated rate of refund was fixed. In a large number of cases, this proof is provided by the customs documents of importation issued by the various countries whose authenticity is usually validated by the seals and signatures of the customs authorities of those countries.

National paying agencies normally have a compendium of specimens of the most usual customs seals. When they find changes in the seals, they take steps to check the validity of the new seal in order to verify the validity of the documents provided to support the application for payment of the refunds.

The Commission does not intend to create a centralised catalogue of the forms and customs stamps used in the customs procedures of non-member countries. Application of the Community rules on the payment of export refunds is a matter for the national paying agencies, which have considerable experience of this matter and maintain regular contacts with the customs authorities of non-member countries.

Such a catalogue could be drawn up by the World Customs Organisation.

(2001/C 26 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0208/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Is the Commission aware of the recent Amnesty report on human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo? The report catalogues evidence of the often brutal targeting of opposition politicians, journalists and other government officials. What action does the Commission intend to take and will it press for the reinforcement of UN human rights field monitors in the Great Lakes region, including in the Democratic Republic of Congo? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/19

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (8 March 2000)

The Commission is following very closely the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and is aware of the recent report of Amnesty International on the subject.

The Commission is engaged in initiatives to give direct assistance in support of the human rights situation in the DRC, in order to prepare a programme aimed at improving the judicial system and at contributing to the establishment of the rule of law in the DRC. A specialist funded by the Commission has been working in Kinshasa for a year now in close contact with the delegation of the Commission, the ministries of Human Rights and Justice, the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for human rights, representatives of the local civil society and other donors.

The programme to be funded will deal with aspects such as the support to local human rights organisations, the rehabilitation of the judicial system, and assistance in the publication of a national register.

The Commission is also ready to examine and, where appropriate, give support to, any valid initiative intended to promote the respect for human rights in the region.

(2001/C 26 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0213/00 by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission (4 February 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of rules on the transport of dangerous goods by road

A directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the transport of dangerous goods by road came into force on 1 January 1997, containing a number of transitional provisions valid until 1 January 1999. After that date, Parliament should have been asked for its opinion on a Commission proposal to end these derogations.

Under the usual procedure, it is the European Committee for Standardisation (ECS) which proposes rules in this field. The ECS was not able to complete its work in the time available. As a result, the Commission has proposed a directive designed to amend the existing directive, providing a short-term solution to the problems rather than ending the transitional arrangements, as it was supposed to do. This is exactly what happened in the case of the transport of dangerous goods by rail, except for the fact that a deadline was fixed.

Is the Commission able to say when the ECS will submit the results of its work to Parliament?

Until that happens, it is pointless for the Member States to amend their national rules. A certain amount of flexibility has therefore been introduced with the Member States being given the option of adopting or applying different rules.

The Member States may also continue to apply their own rules for certain types of transportable pressure equipment for which there are no European rules. They may also adopt different provisions for local transport or ad hoc shipments.

How does the Commission plan to ensure a minimum level of coordination at European level? In any case, it is deplorable that in a field as crucial as the transport of dangerous goods the Commission continues to put off the adoption of harmonised rules, thereby jeopardising human safety and the environment?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (27 March 2000)

As stressed by the Honourable Member the transitional arrangements under Council Directive 94/55/EC of 21 November 1994 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the transport of dangerous goods by road are linked to the progress made in the activities of the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN/ECS) (1). C 26 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

The majority of the CEN standards applying to the vessels and tanks used to transport gases should be finalised, and thus incorporated in those annexes, during the next adaptation to technical process of the annexes to Directive 94/55/EC, planned for 1 July 2001.

In the meantime the Commission will continue to ensure that the laws in force are consistent, and to that end is proposing an amendment to the provisions on the carriage of dangerous goods in order to bring this in line with Council Directive 1999/36/EC of 29 April 1999 on transportable pressure equipment (2). Parliament gave a favourable reception to that proposal on first reading.

Member States requests regarding the possibility of adopting different provisions applying to local transport are subject to acceptance by a committee consisting of all the Member States and chaired by the Commission. This would enable the maximum of coordination needed at European level to be provided.

(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994. (2) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999.

(2001/C 26 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0214/00 by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: The wreck of the ‘Erika’ and compensation for the fisheries and aquaculture sector from the Structural Funds

The wreck of the ‘Erika’ resulted in serious economic damage to the fisheries and aquaculture sector, one already hard hit by various crises. Some fishermen have lost their fishing grounds around the sunken parts of the ‘Erika’s’ hull, which constitute veritable ‘delayed-action bombs’. Others have lost the tools of their trade, which have been polluted by fuel oil. They have all refused to put to sea for some time and have lost valuable fishing days.

As for the oyster farmers, some have paid dearly for the disaster: oils slicks have penetrated their oyster farms and destroyed not only the oysters themselves but also the equipment used in oyster farming.

Finally, consumer confidence in these seafood products has dwindled away, with falling sales the likely outcome.

Faced by this economic catastrophe, persons who have suffered damage may apply for compensation from FIPOL (International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund). However, no emergency aid is granted within the European Union.

Press releases dated 4 and 13 January 2000 indicate, however, that the European Commission takes the view that the Structural Funds might be used to assist victims of the storm.

Is the European Union also contemplating using these Funds to aid the fishermen and oyster farmers who were victims of the oil spill? If so, what will it do if some regions which are dependent on fishing are not eligible under Objective 2?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) may contribute towards compensating the losses suffered by fishermen and oyster farmers as a result of the oil slick under the next French single programming document (SPD) on structural assistance in fisheries and aquaculture 2000-06, in accordance with the FIFG implementing Regulation, 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). 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/21

The French SPD, which has not yet been submitted to the Commission, will cover the whole of France apart from Objective 2 areas. Thus the regions affected by the oil slick may benefit from all the measures provided for under the FIFG Regulation.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2001/C 26 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0221/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: State aid to the EPAC Empresa para a Agro-Alimentação e Cereais, SA (Agro-foods and Cereals Company, Ltd)

The EPAC, SA agro-foods and cereals company was recently dissolved by the Portuguese Government, leaving only the EPAC-Comercial, which according to reports in the press is also under threat unless the Commission authorises state aid.

The EPAC, SA employed over 1 000 workers and played a major role in cereal marketing in Portugal. Still at stake are over 160 jobs.

What is the Commission’s position with regard to retaining the EPAC-Comercial at least, and hence safeguarding the jobs of the more than 160 people it employs?

What, in the light of the decisions taken, are the Commission’s responsibilities regarding the dissolution of the EPAC, SA and the hundreds of people now out of work as a result?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

The Commission is responsible for monitoring State aids under the EC treaty, Articles 87-89 (former Articles 92-94) of which make aid granted by the Member States that distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings, or the production of certain goods, incompatible with the common market.

At the end of 1996 the Commission received a complaint from private operators engaged in the cereals trade concerning a guarantee granted by Portugal to the Empresa para a Agri-Alimentação e Cereais, SA (EPAC) in relation to a loan to consolidate its bank debt. On 9 July 1997, the Commission adopted a negative final decision with regard to this guarantee. Portugal did not apply this decision, which it referred to the Court of Justice. Legal proceedings are still continuing.

Portugal also notified the Commission of a restructuring programme for this firm and an aid measure for the harbour company Silopor. In view of the relationship existing between these two public-sector companies, the Commission considered these cases together. The restructuring plans were discussed at length by Portugal and the Commission and proceedings were opened under Article 88(2) (former Article 93) of the EC Treaty. (1) The final version was sent at the end of 1999. The Commission will adopt its final position on this matter as soon as possible.

As regards the employment aspect, the Commission would stress that the financial difficulties of EPAC resulted from its failure to adapt to the European single market in cereals, not to any obligations arising from compliance with the Community competition rules.

The Community guidelines on State aid for firms in difficulty (2) are based on the restoration of the economic viability of the firms which would benefit. These firms have to take internal measures under a restructuring plan to restore their long-term viability within a reasonable timescale based on realistic assumptions. The aid may not have a harmful impact on the other firms active on the market which do not have access to similar aid. C 26 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Lastly, the Community guidelines leave the Member States considerable freedom to grant aid to cover the social costs arising from these restructuring processes.

(1) OJ C 363, 25.11.1998. (2) OJ C 288, 9.10.1999.

(2001/C 26 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0225/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council (28 January 2000)

Subject: European Working Groups

The European Parliament has no power of scrutiny over the European Working Groups. Indeed little is know of them even in national parliaments.

Will the Council supply a list of all Working Groups formed, together with their statement of purpose; designated level and department of national representation; and brief statement of subject matter presently under discussion?

Reply (8 June 2000)

The Council attaches the greatest importance to openness and transparency in the European Union’s decision-making process. It underlines that the European Working Groups to which the Honourable Member refers must not be confused with the committees set up to assist the European Commission within the general framework of the Decision on Committee Procedure of 28 June 1999.

Bearing this in mind, the Council would inform the Honourable Member that, as part of the reforms to ensure an effective Council for an enlarged Union, it has recently streamlined and reduced the number of its preparatory bodies, which are now established in an official list. That list specifies the committees and working parties directly involved in preparing work for Council meetings and will be implemented gradually. It will be updated to take account of any changes. The work of all such preparatory bodies is of course subordinate to, and scrutinised by, the Council.

Subsequent to the procedure for amending the Council’s Rules of Procedure, which is still being finalised, the General Secretariat of the Council is responsible for publishing the list of those preparatory bodies. A copy of that list will accordingly be sent to the Honourable Member.

(2001/C 26 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0227/00 by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE) and Gerardo Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE) to the Commission (4 February 2000)

Subject: Arrest of moderate dissidents in Cuba

The moderate dissidents, Osvaldo Payá Sardinas and Hector Palacios, were recently arrested in Cuba, after first being taken to an unknown destination. According to the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, more than 300 dissidents and human rights activists have been arrested since November 1999.

Is the Commission aware of these facts?

What are its views on these arrests?

Does it intend to take any action on this matter? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/23

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

The Commission follows the human rights situation in Cuba closely and in particular the case of political dissidents through monitoring carried out by the human rights working group made up of representatives of Member States’ embassies and the Commission in Havana. Through declarations and approaches at local level, the Union has regularly expressed its disapproval to the Cuban authorities regarding the treatment of political dissidents and activists.

The Commission is aware of the detention of those dissidents in the last months. To the best of the Commission’s knowledge, the majority of cases have been short detentions (Cuban human rights groups claim that the number of detainees that would have to face trial is around 11 out of 262) but the Commission still believes its importance must not be underestimated.

The Commission was also informed about the detention of Osvaldo Payá and Hector Palacios on 25 January 2000. It has learned that the two were released after being interrogated by security officers. On that basis, the Union has agreed not to undertake formal action on the matter at this stage. The Commission will nevertheless continue to work towards pursuing the common goals of promoting human rights in Cuba and will take advantage of any opportunity to raise the issue with the Cuban authorities.

(2001/C 26 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0247/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Withholding of the premium for tobacco producers for the Community Tobacco Fund

In its resolution of 17.7.1997 (1) on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco, the European Parliament called on the Commission to supply information on the activities so far of the Tobacco Research and Information Fund as a precondition for any agreement to increase the resources available to it.

1. Has any information been published about the use of the resources withheld between 1993 and 1988 by the Tobacco Research and Information Fund? Which programmes have been funded for Greece so far?

2. Given that no implementing regulation has been issued to increase the deduction decided by Council Regulation 1636/98 (2) on the Community Tobacco Fund, does the Commission intend to examine the possibility of not withholding the premium for tobacco producers for the above Fund in 1999?

(1) OJ C 286, 22.9.1997, p. 237. (2) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 23.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

1. In connection with the Community fund for tobacco research and information, set up pursuant to Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco (1), the Commission issued two invitations to submit proposals (on 1 July 1994 and 30 April 1996) covering both the fields for which the fund was set up: information and research.

On the research side, the first invitation resulted in three projects being selected for a Community contribution of € 5,9 million, the second in six projects being selected for a Community contribution of € 6,5 million. C 26 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

On the information side, the first invitation resulted in eleven projects being selected for a Community contribution of € 5,5 million, the second in seven projects being selected for a Community contribution of € 7,9 million.

None of the projects submitted in response to the above invitations for proposals has been carried out entirely in Greece.

2. As regards the deduction in favour of the fund for the 1999 harvest, the Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that Council Regulation (EC) No 1636/98 of 20 July 1998 which amends Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 stipulates the deduction to be made and applies as from the 1999 harvest. Consequently, there is not a regulatory void with regard to implementing the deduction provision.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(2001/C 26 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0255/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: McDonald report

What assessment has Commissioner Kinnock made of the McDonald report, as referred to in the Sunday Times of 3 October 1999, in formulating his reforms relating to the Commission, with particular reference to (a) the allegations of fraud (b) the working mentality and has any Communities money funded the research?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2000)

The work to which the Honourable Member refers was done as a follow-up to a similar investigation on the same matter in 1993, in order to evaluate whether, and how far, the intervening enlargement or other events had altered the perceptions of Commission staff about their employer, about their own roles, and about those of their colleagues. Assessments of that kind can obviously contribute usefully to reflections on how to manage recruitment from future new Member States, or to making productive changes in personnel policy.

The general conclusion from Dr McDonald was that there had been little change that was specific to Commission employees because most alterations in such perceptions are largely attributable to broad societal changes, for example on the duties of employers, the status of women in the workplace, and social norms.

However, the work was taken into account in the compilation of the White Paper on ‘Reforming the Commission’ (1). One example concerns staff motivation or working mentality, an issue which the Honourable Member explicitly addressed in his question. The emphasis put on merit-based promotion and on improved management is, among other changes, specifically related to efforts to recognise meritorious performance and to achieve conditions similar to those recommended by Dr McDonald.

The ‘allegations of fraud’ to which the Honourable Member refers in his question were described by the Sunday Times as ‘dark but often unsubstantiated’. Where allegations are made and suspicions are supported by reasonable evidence, they are invariably subject to proper investigation and proceedings.

Dr McDonald worked under contract and was paid accordingly by the Commission.

(1) COM(2000) 10 final. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/25

(2001/C 26 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0258/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: EU fish catches by volume and value

Can the Commission state whether it has a breakdown of the total fish catch by volume and value attributable to the fleet of each Member State and does it also have a breakdown of where these fleets land their catch (either in or outside the Community) and can these statistics be made available?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Under Community legislation (1) Member States are required to report to the Commission the volume of their annual catches (in tonnes live weight equivalent) broken down by species and the area of capture. No value data are required with these submissions. Summary data of this kind is mentioned in the statistical bulletin of the Directorate general for Fisheries. The latest copy is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s secretariat.

The detailed breakdown of where Community vessels land their catches is not available. Under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2104/93 of 22 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1382/91 on the submission of data on the landings of fishery products in Member States (2) Member States are required to submit monthly reports on the volume (in tonnes product weight) and the average price of 120 fishery products landed in their ports. The national reports are broken down by the landings by all Community vessels (without identification of the Member State of the vessels), by vessels from the European free trade area (EFTA) countries and, not on a mandatory basis, by the vessels of third countries. The reports do not include data on the landings by national vessels in foreign ports (neither in or outside the Community).

These catch and landings statistics are available for consultation on Eurostat’s New Cronos data-base in the domain on fishery statistics.

Under Regulation (EEC) No 2847/931, Member States are required to ensure the verification and the recording of landings of catches of species carried out in another Member State or in a third country.

This data forms part of the notifications that Member States transmit to the Commission by reason of their obligations resulting from Regulation (EEC) No 2104/93 and can be made available to the Honourable Member.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3880/91 of 17 December 1991 on the submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in the north-east Atlantic OJ L 365, 31.12.1991, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2018/93 of 30 June 1993 on the submission of catch and activity statistics by Member States fishing in the north west Atlantic OJ L 186, 28.7.1993, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, Council Regulation (EC) No 2597/95 of 23 October 1995 on the submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in certain areas other than those of the north Atlantic OJ L 270, 13.11.1995. (2) OJ L 191, 31.7.1993. C 26 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0269/00 by Jan-Kees Wiebenga (ELDR) to the Council

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Schengen-area border checks at Schiphol airport

A case has been reported of a Netherlands national who was required by the Netherlands airline KLM to show a valid passport as proof of identity on an intra-Schengen flight from Amsterdam to Rome.

1. On what provisions of the Schengen Treaty is the requirement to show a valid passport based?

2. Are there not other travel documents or proofs of identity that are recognised by European Union Member States as sufficient for travel between Schengen countries? If so, what are they?

3. Do other national Schengen-country airlines, such as Sabena, Air France or Lufthansa, also ask for a valid passport, or do they also accept other proof of identity?

4. If the arrangements applied were in accordance with the rules in force, is the Council prepared to change those rules so that other proofs of identity can be accepted?

(8 June 2000)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that, as far as nationals of the Member States are concerned, the Schengen provisions do not regulate the right of airlines to verify prior to check-in that the holder of a travel document which is normally personal and non-transferable is indeed the person named in that document.

In addition, the Council informs the Honourable Member that, pursuant to Directives 68/360/EEC and 73/ 148/EEC, and on the basis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, all nationals of the Member States must, when travelling within the EU, be in possession of either a valid identity card, or a valid passport. Since an identity card is not compulsory in the Netherlands, any national of that country travelling to the territory of another Member State must at least hold a valid passport.

In any case, the Council would emphasise that it is to the Commission and to the Court of Justice and that the Treaty entrusts the task of ensuring that Community law is applied correctly in the Member States.

(2001/C 26 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0271/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Functioning of the internal employment market between the EU and Switzerland

A European citizen, Kosta Parlavanzas, has submitted a substantial set of documents in which it is stated that Switzerland pursues a deliberate, systematic policy of restricting employment opportunities for foreign workers to a period of between 20 and 30 years, after which they are sent back to their country of origin with no transfer of pension rights.

Is the Commission in possession of any research into the legal status of European immigrants in Switzerland?

Does the Commission consider it possible or desirable for relations between the EU and Switzerland to continue and to be deepened (particularly in the context of the European Economic Area) if the latter country fails to implement the basic employment rules of the single market? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/27

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

The Commission agrees that the current legal situation of Community nationals working in Switzerland is not satisfactory. It has therefore negotiated a wide-ranging agreement on the free movement of people to align the Swiss provisions with the acquis communautaire in this area, including that on social security and pension rights.

The Agreement was signed on 21 June 1999 and will come into force after Parliament’s assent and after ratification by the Contracting Parties.

Once the Agreement has come into force, the Commission will closely monitor its implementation by Switzerland and raise any difficulties in the joint committee which is to be established under the Agreement.

The Agreement on free movement of people is linked to six other sector agreements (on air and land traffic, research, agriculture, public procurement and mutual recognition of conformity assessment), which can only enter into force together. Switzerland will therefore not obtain advantages in other areas without granting the agreed improvements for Community citizens in Switzerland.

(2001/C 26 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0277/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Integration of foreigners in Switzerland

In Switzerland there exists an extra-parliamentary committee known as the Federal Committee on Aliens, the main task of which is to deal with matters relating to the integration of foreigners and which comprises 28 members, seven of whom are foreigners representing their respective communities (including representatives of communities originating in EU Member States), the others being representatives of government, business and industry.

The Swiss Federal Council recently decided to incorporate the Federal Committee on Aliens into the Federal Aliens Department, a body which comes entirely under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice and the Police and which is responsible for policing foreigners, allocating work-permit quotas for foreigners and issuing visas. The decision was strongly opposed by the chairman and members of the Federal Committee on Aliens (who have since submitted their resignation) and by the 650+ foreigners’ associations in Switzerland, who are proposing that the Committee should remain under the jurisdiction of the Interior Ministry or an independent delegate.

Does this new guardianship of the Federal Committee on Aliens not run counter to the spirit of the Agreement on the free movement of persons between, on the one hand, the European Community and its Member States and, on the other, the Swiss Confederation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Agreement on the free movement of persons with Switzerland, signed on 21 June 1999, has not yet come into force. It needs first to have Parliament’s assent and to be ratified by the Contracting Parties.

The Agreement does not stipulate anything about the internal administrative organisation of the Contract- ing Parties.

For its part the Commission does not have any reason to believe the new internal administrative organisation in Switzerland to be contrary to the spirit of the Agreement. C 26 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Nevertheless, the Commission will closely follow the implementation of the Agreement, once it has come into force, and raise any difficulties with the Swiss authorities in the joint committee which is to be established under the agreement.

(2001/C 26 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0293/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission (11 February 2000)

Subject: Czech Republic’s progress on the way to accession

Is the Commission aware that the German government considers the Benesch decrees, in so far as they relate to the deportation, revocation of citizenship and expropriation of Germans in former Czechoslova- kia, as contrary to international law, and how in that connection does it view the possibility of those decrees continuing to remain in force in the context of possible accession by the Czech Republic to the European Union, having regard in particular to the Copenhagen political criteria?

(2001/C 26 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0294/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission (11 February 2000)

Subject: Czech Republic’s progress on the way to accession

Is the Commission aware that Czech citizens of German nationality continue to this day to have difficulty in recovering property lost to them on the basis of the 1945 and 1946 laws and decrees, and is the Commission prepared to make approaches to the government of the Czech Republic in that connection in the context of accession negotiations?

(2001/C 26 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission (11 February 2000)

Subject: Czech Republic’s progress on the way to accession

Does the Commission share the view that the Czech Republic’s restitution law is contrary to international law in so far as the non-retention of Czech nationality continues to be treated as grounds for exclusion from restitution of property even when that nationality was not surrendered voluntarily, and is the Commission prepared to remind the government of the Czech Republic that compliance with international law is an indispensable pre-condition for accession?

(2001/C 26 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0296/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission (11 February 2000)

Subject: Progress with implementing European Union objectives in the Czech Republic

Human rights violations committed against citizens of various nationalities as a result of their expulsion from Czechoslovakia in the period after the end of the Second World War have still not been put right even today. Many of those concerned are still living. Decrees by the Presidents of the Republic and other laws led in 1945 and 1946 to the complete expropriation of mainly German and Hungarian property- 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/29

owners, which still affects people today and is upheld by the laws of the Czech Republic. Indeed, the Czech Republic continues to argue that the law of 8 May 1946 declaring an amnesty for excesses committed at the time of the expulsion remains in force.

Does the Commission share the view that to maintain laws and decrees dating back to 1945 and 1946, which led to the expulsion of over three million European citizens and deprived them of their citizenship, is not an appropriate way to help create an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe?

(2001/C 26 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0297/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Situation of minorities in the Czech Republic

In Commission reports on the Czech Republic’s progress on the way to accession (1998 and 1999), it is stated that the situation of minorities with the exception of the plight of the Roma people is satisfactory.

Is the Commission aware that the expropriation and deportation of ethnic German population groups in the aftermath of World War Two represents a continuing violation of compelling standards of international law that fundamentally infringes the rights of members of the ethnic German community living in the Czech Republic today?

(2001/C 26 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0298/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Acquisition of land in the Czech Republic

What information does the Commission have about the possibility that, after the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union, the Czech Finance Ministry may be seeking to prevent citizens of other EU Member States from acquiring real estate in the Czech Republic, and what measures is the Commission considering, bearing in mind that it has always been stressed that when the Czech Republic accedes to the EU it will be required to accept the ‘acquis’?

(2001/C 26 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0299/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Protection of minorities in the Czech Republic

At the Copenhagen European Council in 1993, the European Union adopted criteria for accession negotiations with the Central and Eastern European countries. In addition to democracy and the rule of law, these included respect for human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.

Bearing this in mind, what is the Commission’s view of the legal status of ethnic Germans currently living in the Czech Republic, whose continuing expropriation pursuant to the Benes Decrees (1945 and 1946) violates the requirement to protect minorities and the prohibition of discrimination? C 26 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0300/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Unsettled property claims between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Czech Republic

As is well known, the Federal Republic of Germany’s government has invariably condemned the expulsion of the Germans from Czechoslovakia and the uncompensated confiscation of German property as an infringement of international law. The German Government has always emphatically upheld this position.

The political significance of these unsettled property claims for the Community’s legal system cannot be resolved by referring to Article 295 of the EC Treaty.

How does the Commission view these still unsettled property claims in connection with the accession negotiations with the Czech Republic, and is it prepared to help rectify this injustice?

(2001/C 26 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0301/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Promotion of European legal culture in the Czech Republic

On 8 March 1995 the Czech Republic’s constitutional court ruled in the Dreithaler Case that the deprivation of the rights of the German population and their deportation under the so-called Benesch decrees were in accordance with the legal principles of Europe’s civilised societies. Accordingly the Law of 8 May 1946, for instance, on the legality of activities connected with the fight for the liberation of Czechs and Slovaks, remains on the statute book. This law is an amnesty for criminal offenders and provides these arbitrary measures, which continue to have effect, with a legal basis that is still applicable today.

Is the Commission aware of this judgment, and in view of the forthcoming accession negotiations how does it view the fact that discriminatory laws, directed against other Member States or some of their citizens, are in force in the Czech Republic?

Does the Commission agree that the abolition of such decrees and laws would be a welcome contribution to the common European legal system?

(2001/C 26 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0302/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: European Parliament resolution of 15 April 1999 on the report from the Commission on the Czech Republic’s progress towards accession (1998)

In its resolution on the regular report (1998) from the Commission on the Czech Republic’s progress towards accession (A4-0157/1999) (1) of 15 April 1999 Parliament called on the Czech Government to repeal the surviving laws and decrees from 1945 and 1946 insofar as they concerned the expulsion of individual ethnic groups in the former Czechoslovakia.

In its 1999 progress report the Commission states that it took this resolution into account when drawing up that report. Can the Commission state whether, following this resolution, it has conducted talks with the Government of the Czech Republic on these laws and decrees, and how it intends to take this request by the European Parliament into account in the course of the accession negotiations?

(1) OJ C 219, 30.7.1999, p. 443. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/31

(2001/C 26 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0303/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: European Union accession negotiations with the Czech Republic

At the 1993 Copenhagen Summit the European Council confirmed its determination to ensure that all people are protected against infringements of fundamental rights and freedoms. The European Council referred amongst other things to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Convention contains a requirement to abolish discriminatory laws and regulations.

How does the Commission view the fact that, in spite of the above, the Benesch decrees (dating from 1945 and 1946) and the amnesty law (1946) are still valid in the Czech Republic, although they are explicitly directed against individual ethnic groups?

(2001/C 26 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0398/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Accession negotiations with the Czech Republic

In its opinion on Poland’s application for membership of the EU, the Commission stated that Poland must complete the process of compensating people whose property was expropriated.

Can the Commission say whether it has made such demands of the Czech Republic, where compensation for the expropriation of property in similar circumstances has not yet taken place?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0293/00, E-0294/00, E-0295/00, E-0296/00, E-0297/00, E-0298/00, E-0299/00, E-0300/00, E-0301/00, E-0302/00, E-0303/00 and E-0398/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The accession negotiations with the Czech Republic concern principally its acceptance of and alignment with the ‘acquis’ of the European Union and its ability to satisfy the conditions for membership established by the European Council. As a Member State, the Czech Republic will have to adopt and implement all areas of Community legislation and policy, including the principles of free movement of people and freedom of establishment. The issue raised by the Honourable Member has to be seen foremost in that context, but obviously also the political criteria of Copenhagen play a role given the fact that they contain the protection of the human rights and the protection of the rights of minorities. The Commission is closely monitoring developments on these matters in all the candidate countries.

It is, however, important to notice that the issue put forward in these questions relates to events which took place before the entry into force of the EC Treaty. The so-called Benesch decrees will therefore play no role in the accession negotiations. Moreover, Article 295 (ex-Article 222) EC Treaty states that the Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership. The Commission is thus not in a position to intervene in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

However, the Czech Republic has been a party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) since 1992. The implementation of the ECHR is the responsibility of the Council of Europe. Questions concerning issues arising under this convention should therefore be best addressed to the Council of Europe. C 26 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

The Commission would furthermore refer the Honourable Member to the relevant provisions of the Czech-German declaration adopted on 21 January 1997 on mutual relations.

It is for the several reasons mentioned above, that the Commission finds it difficult to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member.

(2001/C 26 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0307/00 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission (4 February 2000)

Subject: Financial aid for the disaster areas in Champagne-Ardennes (France)

Following the comments by Commissioner Barnier at the January 2000 part-session on the damage caused by the recent storms, what practical measures can the Champagne-Ardennes Region expect from the Commission, in terms of 1. emergency aid, in view of the risks of pollution to public health and the water supply, 2. financial aid: under the EAGGF Guarantee Section, since Article 33 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/ 1999 (1) provides for measures in the event of a natural disaster, in areas eligible under Objective 2, outside the areas, under the LIFE Programme, to supplement national or local aid programmes, 3. logistical aid?

What coordination may we expect under the Community action programme for civil protection which the Council adopted on 9 December 1999?

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

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (6 March 2000)

The Community budget no longer has a specific heading for emergency aid for natural disasters. The Commission will accordingly use the existing instruments when seeking to provide affected regions with the assistance needed for reconstruction.

Like the other regions of metropolitan France, Champagne-Ardenne will continue to be partly eligible for Structural Fund assistance in 2000-2006 under the new Objective 2. The decision in principle on zoning for that Objective in France was adopted by the Commission on 18 January 2000. The final decision should be taken in the next few days, after consideration by the three Advisory Committees concerned. The French authorities will then have four months to present their regional conversion plans to the Commission. If the plans received by 30 April 2000 are declared admissible, expenditure under the categories of operations included in the Single Programming Document will be eligible retroactively from 1 January 2000.

In the case of France, Structural Fund assistance available for the new Objective 2 amounts to € 5 400 million for the period 2000-2006. Furthermore, disaster areas not included in the zoning plan but previously eligible under Objectives 2 and 5(b) will also be eligible for € 620 million of transitional support.

It is worth stressing that the Community’s structural and cohesion policies are basically designed to help reduce economic and social disparities and the Structural Funds do not constitute emergency aid. Nonetheless, given their scope, they can provide meaningful assistance for the economic and social reconstruction of the regions affected. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/33

For example, the Objective 2 programmes can finance the rebuilding of infrastructure, production plant and equipment (areas zoned for economic and craft-trade activities, productive investments, aid to enterprises), training, and the restoration of the historical and cultural heritage with a view to tourism. Programming of operations under the future Objective 2 programme will be the responsibility of the regional authorities. All Structural Fund assistance is provided by way of part-financing of national expenditure.

The goal of the Life programme is to finance demonstration projects in the field of environmental protection, in conjunction with the Community priorities defined in that area. The projects are submitted each year and are assessed mainly on the basis of their innovative and demonstrative nature. The LIFE programme is thus not intended to provide structural financial assistance in disaster zones.

Under the Community action programme in the field of civil protection the Commission is ready to trigger its information exchange network between the Member States should the French authorities responsible for civil protection so request.

Lastly, the reform of the common agricultural policy means that rural development measures throughout the Community’s rural areas can for the first time be part-financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and France will be the main beneficiary. Measures eligible under this policy include the rebuilding of agricultural and forestry production potential damaged by natural disasters and the introduction of suitable prevention instruments.

(2001/C 26 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0315/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Greek Ministry of Agriculture programme for withdrawal of fishing vessels

Decision No 274407/8-2-99 by the Greek Ministry of Agriculture approves financial aid for a programme for the definitive withdrawal of fishing vessels which will be co-funded by the Community and Greece (75 % from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance and 25 % from the Ministry of Agriculture). However, the Greek State is now withholding 25 % of the overall sum of aid.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of this? Given that this certainly invalidates in practice the principle of additionality which is the basic principle for the implementation of the programmes funded under the Community Support Framework, what measures does it intend to take, should the Greek Government continue to act in this way?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

Vessel-scrapping is governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 2468/98 of 3 November 1998 laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of its products. The Regulation contains scales detailing the maximum amounts of state aid payable (based on gross registered tonnage gross tonnage (GRT GT) and vessel age) and the rates of financial assistance. The Community contribution must not be less than 50 % or more than 75 % of the aid granted.

When implementing vessel-scrapping schemes, the Greek Ministry of Agriculture fixes the payable premiums within the limits stipulated by Community legislation, while maintaining the 75 % Community/ 25 % Member State split. C 26 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

In the case at issue, public funds are being managed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2468/98 because even if the premiums paid remain below the limits set by Community legislation Greece pays its 25 % share.

(2001/C 26 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0325/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Lists of vessels authorised to fish using drift nets

In its reply of 5 January 2000 to Question P-2481/99 (1)on the Commission’s interpretation of compliance with Regulation (EEC) No 1239/98 (2) the point is made that ‘when checks are carried out to ensure that the 60 % figure is being adhered to (…), all the vessels which used drift nets during the reference period specified in the above regulation must be taken into consideration’.

Since the Commission is convinced that this is the way in which the regulation is to be interpreted (the purpose thereof being to ensure that drift-net fishing is gradually abandoned), would the Commission not agree that:

the consequence of its interpretation is that the same vessels are being counted as many as three times (once for each year of the 1995-1997 reference period) when the basic listing of the vessels which have fished with drift nets is drawn up with a view to achieving a 40 % reduction in 1998?

in order to dispel such doubts once and for all, can the Commission (as requested by means of Written Question E-1561/99 (3) to which no reply has been received) supply a list of the vessels authorised to fish using drift nets in 1995, 1996 and 1997 and a list of the vessels authorised to fish using drift nets in 1998 and 1999, following the entry into force of the regulation in question?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 173. (2) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998, p. 1. (3) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 34.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources, a total ban on using drift-nets to catch certain (in particular highly migratory) species will enter into force on 1 January 2002. In 1998 Member States were required to reduce their authorised drift-net fleets to 60 % of the vessels which used such gear during the 1995-1997 reference period. Since then, they have been required to submit a list of authorised vessels each year.

The Council thus made provision for phasing out drift-net fishing in two stages after the 1995-1997 reference period, reducing the fleet by 40 % from 1998 and abolishing it completely by the 2002 deadline. In order to counter the socio-economic effects of abolition, the Council authorised each Member State to draw up a conversion plan.

The 1998 limit is calculated on the basis of Member States’ named vessel lists for each of the three reference years. Because the three annual lists for each Member State are compared in order to determine the number of reference vessels subject to the 40 % reduction, the same vessel cannot be taken into account more than once.

Each Member State’s list of authorised vessels for 1998 is based on this method. As has been stressed several times in reply to the Honourable Member’s written questions, the Commission has no proof that Member States are failing to comply with Regulation (EC) No 1239/98. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/35

In its answer to Written Questions P-1537/99 and E-1561/99, (1) the Commission has already provided the Honourable Member with a breakdown, by Member State, of vessels used in 1995-97 and those authorised for 1998-1999.

As already stated in its answer to Written Question E-2484/99 from Mr Ortuondo Larrea (2), the Commission cannot publish the named vessel list because Article 37 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (3) requires data received under that Regulation to be treated in a confidential manner. Each Member State’s supervisory authorities have the information needed to ensure compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1239/98.

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 34. (2) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 145. (3) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.

(2001/C 26 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0384/00 by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: The environmental situation in the Moncayo nature park

The area of the Moncayo nature park in the autonomous community of Aragon which falls within the province of Soria is starting to resemble an ‘electricity park’. As a result of the negligent actions of the authorities, it now contains six wind farms, 31 km of power lines and miles of 220 kw power lines with substations.

The environmental interest of the area is recognised at Community level through the LIFE programme for the protection of the bearded vultures which populate the Sorian area.

No notice was given of the environmental impact assessment in the Official Gazette of Castille and León of 9 July 1998, and the government of Castille and León drastically and unilaterally altered the environmental impact statement (1) without consulting or informing the interested parties. This has resulted in the current situation whereby, with no official change of use being made, the said power lines have been sited in the Cañada Real del Moncayo (a livestock trail running through the park), thereby seriously jeopardising the viability of the LIFE programme in the area. These irregularities have been the subject of more than 1500 complaints, and an administrative appeal is pending.

Could the Commission confirm whether the Spanish Government has correctly transposed Directive 85/ 337/EEC (2), most recently amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (3), on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment?

Is it the case that where changes are made to an environmental impact statement that has already been approved, full compliance with the directive requires a new procedure to be started from the point at which the changes were made?

Does the LIFE programme for the protection of bearded vultures in the area of Moncayo which is part of Aragon make any provision for protection of these birds in neighbouring areas which are part of other autonomous communities?

Is there any measure that would oblige the companies concerned to undo the unnecessary alterations made to the area pending resolution of the administrative appeals currently under way?

(1) Statement published in the Official Gazette of Castille and León (B.O.C. y L) of 6 November 1998. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. C 26 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

With regard to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, it should be noted that the Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Spain for incorrect transposition of this Directive into Spanish law. It has now taken the matter to the Court of Justice (1).

Article 3 of Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC provides that Member States must comply with the Directive by 14 March 1999 at the latest. It should be noted that the Commission automatically takes action whenever a Member State fails to communicate national implementing measures by the given deadline, as provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. A reasoned opinion has just been sent to Spain regarding Directive 97/11/EC.

The project to which the Honourable Member refers concerns industrial installations for the production of electricity or installations for the transmission of electrical energy by overhead cables. This type of project is listed in Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC. Under the terms of Article 4(2) projects of the classes listed in Annex II must be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. In this case an environmental impact assessment appears to have been carried out. On the sole basis of the information communicated by the Honourable Member the Commission cannot determine whether the changes made to the project should be made subject to an impact assessment.

The bearded vulture is one of the species protected by Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. One LIFE project is specifically concerned with the protection of bearded vultures in the Moncayo area in the Autonomous Community of Aragon. The reintroduction of the species to this area will be very important for its reintroduction to other mountainous regions of Spain.

The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is complied with in the case in question.

(1) Case C-474/99. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 26 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0388/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Genetic tests on immigrants in Switzerland

On Sunday the Mise au Point programme broadcast by the Swiss French-language television channel TSR broke the news about a draft law which is already in the hands of the Federal Councillor Ruth Metzler.

According to the programme, would-be immigrants wishing to enter the country in order to join other members of their family will in future (if the law is adopted) be required to undergo genetic tests in order to establish kinship.

In view of the fact that an Agreement exists between the European Union and Switzerland:

1. What is the European Union intending to do about disturbing evidence of a xenophobic attitude towards foreigners which, in this particular case, brings Nazi practices to mind?

2. What will the Commission do in the light of the fact that many foreign nationals live in Switzerland, including nationals from a number of EU Member States? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/37

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

At present the Commission is not in a position to act vis-à-vis Switzerland as regards the draft law in question.

However, the Commission is well aware of the unsatisfactory legal situation of Community nationals working in Switzerland. It therefore negotiated a wide-ranging agreement on the free movement of persons with Switzerland to align the Swiss provisions with the acquis communautaire in this area, including that on social security and pension rights.

The agreement was signed on 21 June 1999 and will come into force after the Parliament has given its assent and it has been ratified by the contracting parties.

Once the agreement has come into force, the Commission will closely monitor its implementation by Switzerland and raise any difficulties in the joint committee to be established under the agreement.

(2001/C 26 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0403/00 by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Effects of the abolition of duty-free sales

The European Council meeting in Cologne on 4 June 1999 decided that the European rules on duty-free sales should be allowed to expire on 30 June 1999. The decision followed heated discussion as to its probable impact. In particular, it was argued that the abolition of duty-free sales would result in drastic job losses.

In view of the foregoing:

1. Does the Commission have any information concerning the impact of the abolition of duty-free sales on the employment market?

2. Does the Commission have any information concerning the impact of that decision on specific regions and sectors (coastal areas, airports, tourism, duty-free retail trade etc.)?

3. Is the Commission aware whether, and in which Member States, compensatory measures have been applied to the regions or sectors affected; if so, what is the extent and nature of such measures?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

For information about the impact of the abolition of intra Community duty-free sales on employment, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the replies given to Written Questions E-1999/99 by Mr Davies (1) and E-2135/99 by Mr Staes (2).

As for regional and sectorial impact, the Commission has not received any information to suggest that the abolition has had any significant impact on specific regions or sectors. It is currently seeking to establish whether Member States might have applied any compensatory measures in response to specific problems that they might have experienced.

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 109. (2) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 57. C 26 E/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/00 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Hormone-mimicking substances

A Danish study has shown that octylphenol, a hormone-mimicking substance, may damage male gametes at the foetal stage.

Another Danish study just published in the periodical ‘Human Reproduction’ shows that one Danish male in two between the ages of 18 and 20 has reduced sperm quality.

No quasi-hormonal substances are banned in the EU yet, for one thing because we do not know which substances may be hazardous to human beings.

1. What is the Commission doing at present to investigate the effects of quasi-hormonal substances on human beings and animals?

2. In view of the Danish studies will the Commission take action to have the use of hazardous quasi- hormonal substances including octylphenol banned?

3. Could there be a connection between damaged male gametes and sperm quality?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

In December 1999, the Commission adopted a communication on a Community strategy for endocrine disrupters (1). The strategy aims to identify the problem of endocrine disruption, its causes and consequences; and to identify appropriate policy action on the basis of the precautionary principle in order to respond quickly and effectively to the problem.

The strategy focuses on the key requirements of further research, international co-operation, communication to the public and appropriate policy action. Recommendations are made for actions in the short-, medium- and long-term to cover these requirements.

One of the key short-term actions is the establishment of a priority list of substances for further evaluation of their role in endocrine disruption. In a first step, the Commission has launched a study to conduct an independent review of peer-reviewed scientific literature as well as the identification of sources and pathways of exposure of humans and wildlife and a quantification of production volumes. In a second step, there will be wide consultation on the results of the study. It is expected that the priority list will be established before the end of 2000. At that stage, the Commission will be in a position to consider what actions are necessary to address hazards or risks relating to specific substances. In this context, it should also be noted that Directive 1999/51/EC (2), which is a technical adaptation of Directive 76/769/EC relating to restrictions on marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (3), takes note of the possible endocrine disrupting activity of one such substance, tributyltin (TBT).

Regarding the possible connection between damaged male gametes and sperm quality, the Commission scientific committee for toxicity, eco-toxicity and the environment (SCTEE) presented its opinion ‘Human and Wildlife health effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals, with emphasis on wildlife and on eco- 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/39

toxicology test methods’ on 4 March 1999 (4). The Committee concluded that, for human health effects, ‘there are associations between endocrine disrupting chemicals, so far investigated, and human health disturbances’ such as testicular, breast and prostate cancers, decline in sperm counts, deformities of the reproductive organs, thyroid dysfunction as well as intelligence and neurological problems. However, a causative role has not been verified.

(1) COM(1999) 706 final. (2) OJ L 142, 5.6.1999. (3) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. (4) Internet address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/sct/out37_en.html.

(2001/C 26 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0417/00 by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Budget nomenclature encouraging the practice of false subsidies

As the answer to Written Question P-2367/99 (1) on budget nomenclature encouraging the practice of false subsidies indicates that Mrs Schreyer failed to understand the first question, I shall rephrase it as follows:

1. According to the Committee of Independent Experts, ‘with regard to subsidies, the Part A/Part B nomenclature, far from leading to clarity, adds to the confusion’, as a result of which ‘a large proportion of subsidies are in fact disguised contracts’. The Committee states even more clearly, in recommendation 4, that ‘the present budget nomenclature, based on the distinction necessitated by The Financial Regulation between Part A (administrative expenditure) and Part B (operating expenditure) is impracticable. It is frequently circumvented when appropriations are earmarked under the budget’. Would the Commission therefore simply state whether or not it intends to retain, with regard to subsidies, the Part A / Part B nomenclature?

As the Commissioner did not even try to answer my second question, I shall rephrase it as follows:

2. Which subsidies disguised as contracts were brought to the Committee’s attention, who were those responsible, what steps does the Commission intend to take and according to what time-scale? The Committee of Independent Experts’ second report states that ‘a large proportion of subsidies are in fact disguised contracts’. To the best of the Commission’s knowledge, was this statement based on the Independent Experts’ impressions, and in that case, what does the Commission intend to do to defend its own reputation? Or was the statement made on the basis of objective findings, and if so, does the Commission intend to ascertain where responsibility lies and take action in respect of those responsible?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 115.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

1. With the current budgetary nomenclature laid down in the financial regulation the Commission budget is separated into two global parts Part A for administrative expenditure and Part B for operational expenditure. As the scope and size of the Community budget has evolved, this global separation has become blurred and it no longer provides adequate clarity and transparency to the actual allocation and reporting of resources.

In the framework of activity based budgeting, the Commission is studying possible changes to the budget nomenclature. These changes will aim to introduce a policy-driven budget and to increase the transparency of the Commission budget. However, for sound management reasons the Commission continues to regard a distinct separation of administrative and operational expenditure in the implementation of the budget of primary importance, but does not have the intention to retain the present Part A and Part B division. C 26 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Progress can only be achieved gradually since it involves revising the financial regulation. Furthermore, as the current financial perspectives include a separate heading which regroups all the ‘Administrative expenditure’ of the different institutions (heading 5), a solution would need to be found at the interinstitu- tional level.

2. No particular ‘subsidies disguised as contracts’ were brought to the Commission’s attention by the committee of independent experts. The committee were making the general point that they disagreed with the Commission’s distinction in its expenditure coding between a grant and a contract for procurement spending on the grounds that, as most grants involved a quid pro quo, they too were in fact a kind of contract. The Commission accepts that most grants do involve a quid pro quo and mutual obligations of a contractual type, but not that they can therefore be assimilated to procurement spending, and so does not accept the term ‘false subsidy’.

The Commission has already laid down guidelines, within the framework of the vademecum on grant management (1) that came into force on 1 January 1999, for differentiating between ‘grants’ and ‘procurement spending’, with the same basic principles of transparency and equality of treatment applying to both types of expenditure.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/intro_funding.htm.

(2001/C 26 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0424/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Research and testing using animals

What is the Commission’s position with regard to research and testing live animals. What action is the Commission taking to reduce such testing?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (1) lays down the provisions to be followed when animals are used for research and testing.

Concerning the Community research programmes, the 5th Framework Programme (Decision 182/1999/ EC) (2) states in Article 7 that ‘All research activities conducted pursuant to the 5th Framework Programme shall be carried out in compliance with fundamental ethical principles including animal welfare requirements, in conformity with Community law.’

Under the programme ‘Quality of Life and management of living resources’, the researchers must apply the principles of replacement by alternative methods, reduction of the number of animals and refinement of experiments. Animal suffering must be avoided or kept to a minimum. These principles must be applied particularly rigorously to animal species that are the closest to human beings. A specific ethical review is performed for all projects raising ethical issues, including those involving non-human primates.

The number of animals used for regulatory testing is approximately 9 % of the total number of animals used in experiments. This can be deduced from the latest Commission report established in accordance with Directive 86/609/EEC. In order to reduce the number of animals for regulatory testing the Commission promotes alternative testing methods requiring either fewer animals or no animals at all (by using in vitro and computer-based methods). 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/41

In 1991, the Commission established a European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), which is a unit of the Institute for Health & Consumer Protection of the Commission’s Joint Research Centre, located at Ispra, Italy. ECVAM’s principal duty is to co-ordinate the validation of advanced, non-animal test methods at Union level, that is, to establish their relevance and reliability for their stated purposes.

In February 2000, the Commission proposed the inclusion of the first three validated in vitro methods into Annex V of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (3). The Member States voted favourably.

These methods were validated as a part of ECVAM’s work programme, in collaboration with laboratories and other institutions in the Member States and the United States, and were endorsed as scientifically validated by the ECVAM scientific advisory committee and accepted by the relevant Commission services. It is anticipated that a further ten methods will be validated during the 5th Framework Programme (1999 2002).

This is the first time ever that validated alternative methods have been included in Annex V. The Commission attaches great importance to this work and is actively promoting the acceptance of these methods into the OECD test guidelines programme, in order to secure their world-wide application.

(1) OJ L 117, 5.5.1987. (2) OJ L 49, 29.2.1999. (3) OJ 196, 16.8.1967.

(2001/C 26 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0426/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(17 February 2000)

Subject: Kosovo detainees in Serbia

On the occasion of a hunger strike (from 24 December 1999 to 6 January 2000) and a demonstration on 5 January 2000, both organised in Brussels by Kosovars from the Albanian World League to demand the release of Kosovar detainees in Serbia, I was received on 5 January 2000 by an official on the staff of the High-Ranking Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy and by the Portuguese Chairman- ship of the European Union. Both bodies declared that they were prepared to arrange for the situation of the Kosovar detainees to be placed on the agenda of the European Council of Ministers on 24-25 January. A reading of the reports of proceedings indicates that this item was not discussed at the said Council.

I wish to ask the following questions:

1. How will the Council respond to the European Parliament resolution of 16 September 1999, in which the Presidency is urged to hold direct talks with the Serbian government on releasing all political prisoners?

2. When will the Council debate the situation of Kosovar Albanians detained in Serbia?

3. Is the Council prepared to table and support a resolution at the UN Security Council calling for the release of Albanian detainees in Serbia? If not, why not?

4. Is the Council prepared to make the lifting of sanctions against Yugoslavia and Serbian participation in implementing the Stability Pact for South-East Europe dependent on a solution to the problem of the Albanian detainees? If not, why not?

(8 June 2000)

The Council has taken note of the resolution of the European Parliament of 16 September 1999 to which the Honourable Member refers. In current circumstances the Council is not in a position to have direct C 26 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

contacts with the Serbian government, nor is it likely to have any influence with Serbia over the release of political prisoners. However the Council fully shares the Honourable Member’s concern over of the fate of the Kosovar prisoners still held in Serbia. It supports all efforts by the international community, among others the ICRC, to obtain the release of all political prisoners. The EU welcomes the releases already obtained by ICRC.

At its meeting on 14 and 15 February, the Council agreed to maintain its overall policy framework of applying maximum pressure on Mr Milosevic. Its decision to suspend the flight ban in the light of calls by the opposition was therefore coupled with an extension of the visa restrictions currently in force and an enhancement of the effectiveness of the existing financial sanctions. Any future decision by the Council on the lifting of sanctions would depend on a number of factors, and could only be taken on the basis of an assessment of the overall situation.

The Council took note of the appeal launched on 23 February by the Kosovo Transitional Council, urging the international community, and the UN Security Council in particular, to put maximum pressure on the Belgrade authorities to release all detainees from Kosovo held unlawfully in Yugoslav prisons. The Member States of the European Union will certainly support any UN initiative to contribute to a solution of the problem. In this context, the Council took good note of the proposed measure by the head of the UN Interim Administration in Kosovo, Mr Kouchner at the UNSC to appoint a special representative who would take this issue up with the Belgrade authorities.

The Honourable Member can remain assured that the Council will continue to consider progress in democratic freedoms and respect for the rights of minorities, including the fate of the Kosovar detainees, as one of the key elements for a change in sanctions policy targeting the Belgrade regime. The Council is keeping the situation in the region, and EU policies towards the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, under constant review.

(2001/C 26 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0436/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: The Commission’s position regarding the United Kingdom’s attempts to regionalise fisheries in Community waters

The United Kingdom is consistently expressing its intention to regionalise fisheries in Community waters, thereby seeking to break up the European fisheries area and to extend the exclusive fishing zone of the State concerned from 12 to 24 miles. According to press reports, Mr Franz Fischler, member of the Commission responsible for agriculture and fisheries, is considering endorsing this claim.

What is the Commission’s official position on this serious issue?

Is the Commission prepared to support this claim made by the United Kingdom which could lead to the destruction of the Common Fisheries Policy and the disintegration of the European economic and monetary area?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the British government has not put forward any proposals for the regionalization of the common fisheries policy (CFP) nor for the extension of the current 12-mile limited access zone to 24 miles.

The above-mentioned ideas emerged during the consultation process on the CFP after 2002, organised by the Commission in 1998-1999. A detailed document on the regionalization of the CFP was presented by an English federation of fishermen’s organisations. A resolution to create national exclusive zones of 24 miles was indeed adopted by the Parliament in February 1999. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/43

The Commission is currently preparing a report on the fisheries situation in the Community, as foreseen in Article 14 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) no 3760/92, of 20 December 1992, establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (1) to be issued during the first half of 2001.

This report will allow for the launching of the debate on the CFP after 2002 within the Community institutions, including a debate on the possible merits and disadvantages of the ideas to which the Honourable Member refers.

(1) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992.

(2001/C 26 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0442/00 by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Domestic fuel oil for opposition towns in Serbia

1. Which towns in Yugoslavia receive oil from the EU?

2. What criteria are applied in the selection process?

3. Why is the municipality of Pancevo not considered eligible?

4. Can the Commission answer these questions rather more rapidly than usual as it is already winter?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The Commission decided on 15 February 2000 to extend the ‘Energy for Democracy’ programme to five additional cities in Serbia. This was at the unanimous request of the Serbian opposition forces on the basis of the results of the pilot project. This request was positively considered by the General Affairs Council (GAC) of 24 January 2000, which invited the Commission to act accordingly.

Five additional cities (Kragujevac, Kraljevo, Novi Sad, Sombor and Subotica) have been added to the existing programme which covered Nis and Pirot. The programme aims to provide heating oil, both to the heating plants and to public buildings (schools, kindergartens, hospitals, and public health and administration buildings). The total amount of heating oil, heavy oil and gas-oil, to be supplied will be around 30 000 tons (it is not possible to give a precise quantity due to fluctuations in the oil derivatives’ price in international markets).

The list of the municipalities was defined on the basis of discussions between the Serbian opposition forces and the Union, in the context of the trilateral meetings (opposition forces, Union and United States). In addition to the two cities under the original programme, the Serbian opposition forces proposed an additional list of 23 cities, 6 of which were considered priorities due to their difficult social conditions. Belgrade was removed from that short list, inter alia due to the particular logistical and financial implications linked to the purchase, transport, delivery and monitoring of supplies in a city of 2,5 million inhabitants.

The Commission has not been able to extend the programme to a larger number of municipalities because of limited financial and human resources. The Commission appreciates the efforts made by Norway with its programme ‘Oil for Democracy’ which has supplied heating oil for nurseries and schools in Cacak and Uzice in complementarity with the programme ‘Energy for Democracy’.

This has been a difficult project to manage, inside and outside Serbia. The Commission has insisted on elaborate monitoring arrangements to minimise the risk of shipments being diverted. The Commission launched the project extremely rapidly, with oil trucks arriving at the Serbian border some five weeks after C 26 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

the GAC decision last October, and with monitoring arrangements already in place. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s authorities held up the first convoy at the border for a fortnight; demonstrations ensued in Nis and Pirot demanding the release of the oil. When the trucks eventually entered Nis they were greeted by crowds cheering the European Union. The project has, however, been highly successful reflected in the decision of the GAC’s decision to extend it, which again the Commission did very rapidly indeed.

(2001/C 26 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0447/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Damage to the environment of the Peñiscola marshes (Valencia) caused by EU-funded projects

The Peñiscola marshes are currently being affected by building and drainage programmes linked to the opening of the N-1 road, the reclamation of six kilometres of coastline, the building of a new promenade and the construction of tourist accommodation and golf courses. All these planned projects are having a direct impact on the environment of this wetland area which is of great importance to the species of flora and fauna found there.

Environmental organisations have protested about this situation to the Community institutions without as yet receiving any response to their complaints, which include the following:

the Peñiscola marshes are the habitat of indigenous species of fish and birds (some of which are included as protected species in the directive on the protection of birds) and should thus be declared a zone of special interest by the Spanish authorities as part of the Nature 2000 network;

the range of projects approved by the Spanish authorities have not been accompanied by an environmental impact statement (since they were considered individually as minor works not affecting the environment and it was not thought necessary to draw up a study of their total overall impact;

85 % of the cost of the coastal reclamation project is being funded by the Community:

the zone concerned continues to be classified as ‘eligible for development’, despite the various statements by the authorities pledging to classify it as a protected wetland area.

In the light of the above considerations and bearing in mind that the Commission already has all the relevant documentation on the matter provided by the organisations which lodged the complaint, does the Commission not consider it contradictory that on the one hand Community legislation should seek to protect a natural area inhabited by species included under the directive on birds, while on the other hand Community funds are being used to carry out works which threaten the environment of this same area?

Will the Commission send a delegation to the marshes to determine whether the impact of these projects is harmful to the environment as claimed by the environmental organisations?

Does it consider that the Spanish authorities may have infringed Community legislation by not requiring the compulsory environmental impact assessment to be carried out for these projects, because it considered them separately rather than as a whole?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Firstly, it should be noted that the ‘Marjal de Peñiscola’ area to which the Honourable Member refers has not been classified by the Spanish authorities as a special protection area for birds under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Neither has it been 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/45

identified by the scientific community as an important area for birds in the inventory prepared for the Commission in 1998 by national experts and Birdlife. Moreover, the Spanish authorities have not identified it as a site of Community importance for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

However, the Commission has information on the presence of a priority species listed in Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC in this area. It hosts one of the four natural populations of Valencia hispanica. The Commission has therefore asked the Spanish authorities to include the site in the national list referred to in Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC. The Spanish authorities have undertaken to officially notify the inclusion of the ‘Marjal de Peñiscola’ site shortly.

With regard to Council Directive 85/337/EEC (3) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment, it should be noted that Article 2 thereof provides that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size or location must be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects before authorisation is granted.

The Commission was informed of the projects to which the Honourable Member refers when investigating a complaint and a petition from Parliament’s Committee on Petitions relating to the same problem. It should be pointed out that the projects in question are of classes which are either not listed in the Annexes to Directive 85/337/EEC or listed in Annex II. Under the terms of Article 4(2) projects of the classes listed in Annex II must be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.

The Spanish authorities have undertaken to take the necessary measures to ensure that the projects will not affect the ‘Marjal de Peñiscola’ site.

At all events, the Commission will continue to investigate the matter and, in its role as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is complied with.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2001/C 26 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0454/00 by Karin Jöns (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Austrian warnings concerning salted saithe products and smoked salmon under the rapid warning system for foodstuffs (pursuant to Directive 92/59/EEC)

Since February 1998 the Austrian Federal Chancellery has been repeatedly warning against the consumption of salted saithe products and smoked salmon inter alia from Germany. The rapid warning system is triggered because Austrian food testing establishments judge qualitatively positive findings of Listeria monocytogenes in 25 g samples harmful to health (pursuant to § 8 (a) of the 1975 Law on Foodstuffs). In other Member States, for example France and Germany, such findings do not comprise sufficient grounds for withdrawing the products in question from circulation. The warnings are disseminated throughout the EU under the rapid information exchange system and cause substantial financial losses to the manufacturers concerned, who may be faced with the alternative of either avoiding the Austrian market or seeing their reputation permanently damaged throughout the EU single market, even though it is only on the basis of Austrian criteria that there is a supposed risk.

1. In the opinion of the Commission (to be precise, the competent expert advisory committee on foodstuffs of animal origin, the former veterinary committee), what are the risks to health from Listeria monocytogenes? C 26 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

2. Does the Commission find it acceptable that there are differing criteria in EU Member States for assessment of the risks to health from Listeria monocytogenes, leading to distortion of competition and undermining the operation of the internal market?

3. What action can the Commission take to ensure that uniform assessment criteria are applied in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

1. 300-600 cases of listeriosis are reported yearly in the Community. The proportion of food-borne outbreaks is unknown, but foods have been clearly identified as a primary source of infection. An important feature of listeria infection is the potentially fatal consequence in particular in susceptible categories of the population.

The Commission regards outbreaks of listeriosis as very serious and asked in 1999 for an opinion from the scientific committee on veterinary measures relating to public health. The committee, which was requested to assess the risk to health from the presence of Listeria monocytogenes at different levels in ready-to-eat food, issued an opinion on 23 September 1999. This opinion is publicly available, for example on the web-site of the Health and consumer protection Directorate-general.

A number of conclusions and recommendations are contained in the scientific opinion. According to the epidemiological data available, it would seem that the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in food represents a very low risk for all population groups when Listeria monocytogenes concentration is below 100 cfu/g. However, uncertainties remain as the above limit is not based upon formal dose-response formulas and the consumption patterns for relevant foods are not directly available.

2. There are no microbiological standards for Listeria monocytogenes in the Community legislation on food, except for milk-based products at despatch from establishments (Council Directive 92/46/EEC). In those products, the standard is absence in either 1 g or 25 g, depending on the type of products. In the absence of harmonised criteria, it is up to the Member States to notify others of the action they are taking or they intend to take when confronted with what they consider as a threat on the basis of their national legislation.

3. The Commission is considering the above scientific opinion with a view to taking initiatives to enhance the safety of consumers. A proposal is scheduled to be adopted this year. It must however be recalled that the primary responsibility for safe food production rests with the food producers.

Furthermore, the legislation in the veterinary and food sectors is facing profound changes during the next few years as outlined in the white paper on food safety approved by the Commission on 12 January 2000 (1). An underlying feature is the increasing need for the use of science-based risk analysis. In the context of the white paper, the Commission will propose a procedure to lay down microbiological standards, and, where appropriate and after risk assessment, related maximum limits of undesirable micro- organisms in foodstuffs.

(1) COM(1999) 719.

(2001/C 26 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0460/00 by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Animal welfare issues raised by the production of pâté de foie gras

Since the end of 1999 Member States have been required to implement in full Council Directive 98/58/ EC (1) concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, which provides that such animals must not be caused any unnecessary suffering or injury on account of the way in which they are fed or 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/47

watered. The report on animal welfare issues raised by the production of pâté de foie gras commissioned by the Commission in 1998 reaches the conclusion that the usual methods of production are in breach of the principles laid down in the directive.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to enforce Directive 98/58 in respect of the production of pâté de foie gras?

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (6 April 2000)

The aim of Council Directive 98/58/EC is to lay down the main principles for the protection of all species of animals kept for farming purposes. It constitutes a legal instrument for the elaboration of future proposals in the field of animal welfare ensuring the uniform application of the Council of Europe Convention on the same subject in the Community.

The Directive currently addresses the welfare requirements to be applied for the protection of animals kept for the different types of production, including the production of foie gras. The Directive also imposes a responsibility on the owner or keeper of the animals to ensure that their welfare respects the minimum requirements provided.

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 above mentioned Convention. The Commission and the Member States of the Union actively participated in the process of drafting and adoption of these recommendations.

The report produced by the scientific committee on animal welfare concerning the ‘Welfare aspects for the production of foie gras in ducks and geese’ was used as reference for the finalisation of the above mentioned recommendations.

The recommendations recognise the necessity to keep the birds in social groups and prohibit the use of small individual cages which are currently used. This prohibition will come into effect on 31st December 2004 for new or replacement accommodation and for all the accommodation on 31st December 2010 at the latest.

The recommendations also call for further research to develop alternative techniques that do not require force feeding for the production of foie gras. It has been agreed that until new scientific evidence on alternative methods and their welfare aspects is available, the production of foie gras shall be carried out only where it is current practice and then only in accordance with standards laid down in domestic law.

If necessary, in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of Directive 98/58/EC, the Commission will submit to the Council further appropriate proposals for the uniform application of the above mentioned recommendations.

(2001/C 26 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0476/00 by Joseph Daul (PPE-DE) to the Commission (24 February 2000)

Subject: Forest damage following Hurricane Lothar

On 26 December 1999 Hurricane Lothar caused enormous damage to forests in France, Southern Germany and Austria, and particularly to farmer-owned private and communal forest, threatening the livelihoods of many family farms.

In the EP debate of 18 January 2000, the Commission referred to possible changes to the Structural Funds, though without promising a specific aid for this dramatic situation. However, changes alone are not enough since structural assistance goes to smaller businesses which frequently also have an agricultural operating unit that is vital for their survival. C 26 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

During the debate, Commissioner Barnier did, however undertake to consider reinstating the budget line for emergency aid deleted two years ago.

Is the Commission prepared to look beyond the existing framework of the Structural Funds and to examine the 2000 budget of the Commission for mobilisable reserves for immediate emergency aid, for instance from the LIFE and ECHO programmes, and possibly to reinstate a budget line for disaster aid within the European Union for 2001?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

With regard to the Structural Funds, the Honourable Member is requested to refer to the answers given by the Commission to written questions 0024/00 from Ms Patrie, 0159/00 from Mr Lang and 0307/00 from Mrs Thomas-Mauro, and to oral question H-0008/00 from Ms Patrie.

There are no provisions in the LIFE Regulation, which is currently under review, for the allocation of a portion of its funding to emergency measures, without a call for projects procedure being initiated. We cannot, therefore, envisage the funding, under the LIFE programme, of any general measures to repair environmental damage caused by the natural disasters which struck France, Germany and Austria in December 1999. We do not, however, rule out the possibility that proposals for new projects under LIFE-Nature or LIFE-Environment could, while meeting the LIFE criteria, also serve to repair the damage to the environment. Any application meeting this profile will be examined (on a case by case basis) under the project monitoring procedures or the tendering procedure for LIFE.

Article 1 of the Regulation governing the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) specifies that: ‘The Commu- nity’s humanitarian aid shall comprise assistance, relief and protection operations on a non-discriminatory basis to help people in third countries, particularly the most vulnerable among them, and as a priority those in developing countries…’ (1). It cannot, therefore, provide assistance in respect of the severe damage caused by natural disasters in the Member States in December 1999.

Since there are provisions for a number of different aid schemes in the Structural Funds Regulations, the Commission currently has no plans to reinstate a specific budget heading for emergency disaster aid within the Community.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid. OJ L 163, 2.7.1996.

(2001/C 26 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0479/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Objective 2 for the Balearic Islands

The municipality of Consell (on Majorca, Balearic Islands) submitted to the Balearic Islands regional government a project for an extension to the town’s school to promote adult education and vocational training, under Objective 2.

Mr Rechach, departmental secretary-general for documentation in the Ministry for Economic Affairs of the government of the autonomous community of the Balearic Islands, informed the mayor that the European Commission had rejected the project because it was located at the school.

Has any proposal under Objective 2 been received from Consell in connection with the above project?

Has the European Commission taken a formal decision to reject the project?

If so, on what grounds was the decision based? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/49

Has the Commission held any meetings with the government of the autonomous community of the Balearic Islands?

If so, what information was given to the Balearic Islands regional government on Objective 2?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (7 April 2000)

At the technical meetings prior to the meeting of the Monitoring Committee on 10 December 1999 concerning the Objective 2 operational programme for the Balearic Islands for the 1997-1999 programming period, the representatives of the regional administration submitted to the Commission a first provisional list of projects for possible part-financing under measure 5.2 ‘Training and vocational development centres’ of that programme. That list included a project for the municipality of Consell.

At those technical meetings, all the proposed projects, including that concerning Consell, were analysed from all points of view (objectives, estimated costs and monitoring indicators, content and eligibility of expenditure, financial and physical identification of the projects not directly subject to local government administrations, completion of national commitments before 31 December 1999, compliance with procedures for the award of contracts). The final list of projects to be submitted by the regional administration had to be available no later than the day of the meeting of the Monitoring Committee.

At the meeting of the Monitoring Committee on 10 December, the regional administration submitted a list of eleven projects, which the Committee approved. It includes assistance to the municipalities of Alaró, Binissalem, Búger, Campanet (2), Inca (3), Lloseta, Santa Maria and Selva. The total cost envisaged amounts to € 6,24 million, for which the European Regional Development Fund will provide part-finance of 50 %.

Within the framework of the partnership, the Commission wishes to stress the clarity of the procedure and the level of transparency adopted by the regional administration in drawing up this programme.

(2001/C 26 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0482/00 by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission (24 February 2000)

Subject: Funding under the Interreg Community initiative

Could the Commission indicate the amount of funding the Spanish region of Estremedura is likely to receive under the Interreg Community initiative?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (24 March 2000)

The guidelines for the Interreg Community initiative are expected to be approved by the Commission by end of March 2000 or early April 2000. Member States are invited to present programme proposals to the Commission within six months of the publication in the Official journal.

The Community initiative will be financed jointly by the Member States and the Community through the European regional development fund (ERDF). The total contribution by the ERDF to Interreg during the programming period 2000-2006 is fixed at € 4 875 million, at 1999 prices. The indicative allocation of the commitment appropriation for Spain is € 900 million. The guidelines do not specify any regional allocation of the funds.

As the Commission, when approving the programme or programmes for e.g. the Spanish-Portuguese border, grants a single contribution from the ERDF per programme without financial breakdown by Member State, the amount allocated from the Interreg Community Initiative for the Extremadura region in Spain can not be indicated even then. C 26 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0490/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) and Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Sex trafficking in Kosovo

Is the Commission aware of press coverage referring to sex trafficking involving women from impover- ished parts of Eastern Europe, taking place in Kosovo?

Would the Commission indicate what action they would support intended to end this trade, and the suffering that it causes?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of, and concerned about, the reports that trafficking in women for the purpose of sexual exploitation is taking place into, through and from Kosovo. It seems to be the case that Kosovo is not only a place of origin, but also a place of transit and destination.

As regards the situation in Kosovo, the Commission is taking an active part in the work under the stability pact for South Eastern Europe. Within working table III on justice and home affairs, and the Council’s multidisciplinary working group on organised crime, work is under way to combat organised crime in Kosovo and the neighbouring region. Trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation forms an important part of this work.

As regards the trafficking in human beings going through and from Kosovo to the Member States and candidate countries, the Commission will continue to support actions and projects under the STOP and the DAPHNE programmes. The Commission will also put forward legislative proposals to approximate Member States criminal laws on trafficking, including the issue of temporary permits of stay for victims of trafficking who are prepared to give evidence. In addition, the Commission actively participates in international co-operation against trafficking in a wider context. This includes the Group of eight most industrialised countries (G8), the Organisation for security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe and the United Nations (UN) (e.g. draft Convention on transnational organised crime and the three additional protocols, one of which concerns trafficking).

(2001/C 26 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0494/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Problem of security and jurisdiction

In its reply to Question No E-2160/99 (1), the Commission states that the objective put forward by the European Council in Tampere to provide citizens with a high level of safety ‘shall be done by, inter alia, developing common action among Member States in the field of police cooperation’ and that ‘common action in the field of police cooperation shall include cooperation and joint initiatives in, among others, the use of equipment’. The Commission nevertheless adds that any action developed in this context shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security. The Commission concludes that the measures proposed by the questioner ‘seem to fall under the said responsibilities of Member States’.

1. Can the Commission specify whether such measures ‘seem to fall’ or do actually fall under the responsibilities of Member States?

2. In the latter case, how can the different measures in each country regulating the use of certain self- defence devices, such as sprays, be reconciled? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/51

3. How can it be claimed that a single market exists when certain self-defence devices used and sold in France, for example, are not allowed to cross the border into Italy, where they are banned?

4. What impression can citizens have of the EU if they use a device which is legal in France, but are considered criminals when they use that same device in Italy?

5. What proposals does the Commission intend to make to overcome these inconsistencies and to speed up the creation of a common area of freedom, security and justice?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 61.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

The Commission does not currently have the intention to take up an initiative to harmonise Member States’ legislations on the use of self-defence devices such as sprays or low-voltage electrical fences, the use of which is allowed in some Member States. The Commission considers that it is for each Member State to regulate the use of such devices in its own territory, in so far as the maintenance of public order or the safeguard of public security is at stake.

According to Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union, the provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters of Title VI shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

The Commission takes the position that the application of Article 33 in this context does not affect the implementation of the EU Treaty on the basis of the Vienna action plan and the political guidelines and concrete objectives agreed by the Tampere European Council, which will provide European citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice.

(2001/C 26 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0504/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Reassignment of Commission staff

What procedures does the Commission have available, and how often are they implemented, for the reassignment of staff from one directorate-general which may need fewer staff to another directorate- general which may need more staff? How effective have these measures been in terms of the number of posts transferred each year between directorates-general as a percentage of total numbers in post? Can the Commission give any other information about its reassignment of staff?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

Since 1997, human resources have been allocated each year as part of the budgetary procedure with a view to linking the levels of staff and administrative appropriations more closely to the volume of operating appropriations to be managed and thus synchronising better the various procedures for planning and allocating resources. It should be emphasised that this exercise in not the only occasion on which the Commission transfers human resources. Sometimes large-scale transfers are made in conjunction with decisions taken under the budgetary procedure. As part of its continued effort to adjust structures to requirements, the Commission uses its administrative independence to make transfers and other movements. On a different but still significant scale, individual Commission departments also endeavour to adjust their internal structures to the tasks required of them. C 26 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

During the 1998, 1999 and 2000 budgetary procedures, the Commission actively sought to reassign some of its human resources available with a view to strengthening its activities in priority areas. When the preliminary draft budget was being prepared, 1 % of posts were set aside to create a pool of human resources to be allocated to activities considered as priorities. For the 1998 and 1999 budgets the annual allocation exercises covered both the (vacant) posts corresponding to the 1 % set aside and the annual instalment of 110 new posts connected with the last enlargement (Austria, Finland and Sweden).

During the period 1997 to 1999, staff increases were mainly for the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection, programme management, in particular in the field of external action, including the creation of the Relex Common Service and the establishment of ad hoc task forces to deal with the Kosovo crisis. Some of the other departments which received significant staff increases were the Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF), the Justice and Home Affairs Task Force, the Directorate- General for Economic and Financial Affairs and the Directorate-General for Competition.

During the current year, human resources are being allocated in parallel with a root and branch reorganisation of Commission departments in a bid to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Reorganisation began in September 1999. Some Directorates-General have been merged (for example, the new DGs Enterprise, Education and Culture and Energy and Transport) and new departments have been created (for example the new DGs Enlargement and Justice and Home Affairs). This involved transfers of duties and staff from one department to another. By rationalising departments, the reorganisation released significant numbers of human resources (approx. 2 %) which were assigned to priority activities. Together with the human resources thus released, the allocation of the 1 % of posts set aside (see above) concerned the departments which have not undergone major reorganisation. In all, the equivalent of more than 500 man/years were reassigned in the year 2000 allocation exercise.

The allocation exercise for the year 2000 assigned additional staff to programme management, in particular in the area of external action, to the setting up of the new DGs Enlargement and Home Affairs, to activities relating to the President’s enhanced coordination role as coordinator, to competition policy and to other aspects of the internal market.

(2001/C 26 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0512/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Offshore centres and the exchange of information concerning payments

In the light of the answer to Written Question E-2234/99 (1) by Mr Bolkestein (17 January 2000), is there any reason why similar measures to those outlined in the answer might not be applied to offshore centres which failed to enter into agreements for the exchange of information concerning payments to non- residents?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 128.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Beyond the scope of current anti-money-laundering provisions, the exchange of information regarding tax matters is generally governed by bilateral tax treaties which are entirely within the competence of the governments concerned. The finance ministers of the Group of seven most industrialized countries (G7) have recently expressed concern, however, about offshore financial centres and tax havens which undermine international standards of financial regulation and which are shelters to avoid or evade payment of tax. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/53

Representatives of the Financial action task force on money laundering and the Organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD) committee of fiscal affairs have been considering how anti-money- laundering systems could be strengthened and how the effectiveness of tax information exchange arrangements could be increased.

The OECD has also identified the lack of exchange of information as a key factor in identifying tax havens. Accordingly it recommends that countries that do not have rules concerning reporting of international transactions and foreign operations of resident taxpayers should consider adopting such rules and that countries exchange information obtained under these rules. The OECD intends to publish a list of tax havens later this year and will consider the possibility of co-ordinating countermeasures against jurisdic- tions that are uncooperative in the fight against harmful tax competition.

The Community has already adopted directives both to counter money-laundering and to provide mutual assistance in the field of direct and indirect taxation. The latter specifically includes provisions for the exchange of information between tax administrations in order to combat tax evasion and avoidance in the Community. Furthermore the Community has taken the lead in identifying the need for co-ordinated action, and in taking concrete steps to tackle harmful tax competition, including in Member States’ dependent and associated territories.

(2001/C 26 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0514/00 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2000)

Subject: Compensation for cocoa-producing farmers

Amendment of the directive on cocoa and chocolate products for human consumption is currently being considered by the European Parliament at second reading. Although the exact outcome of the codecision procedure is not yet known it seems likely that the 1973 chocolate directive will be substantially amended. The main change is that after a certain time vegetable fats other than cocoa butter will be permitted in chocolate.

This will affect sales of cocoa from the ACP and other developing countries.

In the interests of fairness in North-South relations and our legal obligations under the Lomé agreements and the cocoa agreement, it seems obvious that cocoa-producing farmers should be adequately compensated one way or another and possibly helped to switch to other crops.

Is there a legal basis that the Commission can use for initiatives in this area? If so, which one?

Does the Commission plan to take any initiatives in this area? What are its reasons, if it does not?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

The estimation of the impact of the proposed directive (1) on the use of vegetable fats, other than cocoa, in chocolate manufacture is not feasible before the directive comes into force nor justified in the light of the provisions of the common position adopted by the Council in December 1999 (2). For example, the Council agreed to limit the vegetable fats to those of tropical origin and produced by African, Caribbean and Pacific ACP countries; further, vegetable fats can only be present to the extent of 5 % and only be added to the minimum content of cocoa required for each product; finally, it is not clear to what extent vegetable fats will be more used than at present. All these elements need to be considered when assessing C 26 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

the impact on ACP countries and other cocoa producers and this can only be done once the directive is implemented. In case an estimation of the impact were necessary in the future, the common position foresees a study after 36 months of application of the directive.

As far as the compensatory measures are concerned, the Post Lomé Agreement introduces a special mechanism designed to offer support to countries vulnerable to fluctuations from export earnings, in particular earnings from the agricultural and mining sector.

If a country is heavily dependent on the cocoa sector it may, subject to a number of criteria concerning the importance of the export losses and the country’s public finances, benefit from the support system. The ACP country concerned may decide to target this additional support, when allocated, to compensate cocoa farmers or help them to diversify their crops.

(1) OJ C 231, 9.8.1996. (2) OJ C 10, 13.1.2000.

(2001/C 26 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0517/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Environmental health failures in Frankfurt (former US housing)

The new occupants of what was formerly US housing face a health risk, as very large amounts of adhesive containing tar, with potential carcinogenic effects, were used in the past in the housing in question (e.g. up to 80 % in the case of parquet flooring), as were toxic PCBs and pesticides (e.g. DDT).

1. Is the Commission aware that the authorities concerned have failed to observe the right to the provision of environmental information?

2. Does the Commission agree that it is a serious failing that the risk assessment does not take proper account of small children (under six years of age) as one of the main groups affected?

3. Does the Commission agree that the authorities have the greatest duty of care, and must act in as transparent a manner as possible, vis-à-vis those concerned?

4. Does the Commission agree that, in future, greater importance needs to be attached to indoor pollution?

5. Does the Commission agree that, pursuant to Article 17 of the environmental information directive, it should not be possible for public authorities to withhold, by claiming a derogation, information the disclosure of which could avert a significant threat to health?

6. Does the Commission agree that the latest scientific findings should be taken into consideration in risk assessments?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern that there must be transparency for European citizens, especially with regard to environmental and health problems.

Article 3 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment (1) stipulates that public authorities are required to make available information relating to the environment to any natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest. Any 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/55

refusal to provide information must be explained and must be based on one of the exceptions listed in the Directive. Under the terms of the Directive, public authorities are also required to provide general information to the public on the state of the environment by such means as the periodic publication of descriptive reports.

In addition, any opinion must, to be relevant, be based on the best scientific knowledge available. To this end, the Commission backs many action programmes.

With regard to indoor pollution, the Commission, through the programme of Community action on pollution-related diseases (2), is supporting three projects which will improve our knowledge of how this type of pollution affects public health and so help deal with the risks affecting individuals.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990. (2) OJ L 155, 22.6.1999.

(2001/C 26 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0520/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Environmentally-damaging agricultural practices in the Almenara marshlands (area protected under the LIFE programme)

The Almenara marshland area is being steadily drained by means of water extraction pumps and this is having a serious effect on the level of the water table. It is now over ten years since the last occurrence of the traditional winter flooding which is so beneficial to crops such as rice which are adapted to that kind of environment. The reason why these wetlands are drying out is that the cultivation of citrus fruit by agricultural companies which receive funding from the EAGGF and which pursue their activities with the consent of the Valencian authorities is becoming increasingly widespread.

The area under greatest threat which covers the districts of Almenara, Benavites, Quartell, Sagunt, La Llosa and Xilxes has been included by the Spanish authorities in the Nature 2000 Network since it is regarded as being representative of a number of habitats, some of which are home to certain species which have been allocated priority status in the Annexes to the Directive on habitats. In addition to its significant environmental and landscape value the Almenara marshland area provides ideal conditions for native plants and for many endemic species of fauna.

Local environmental associations, in particular Accío Ecologista Agró, have repeatedly complained about these environmentally-damaging agricultural practices to the appropriate authorities but this has not so far led to any cutback in the operations of the extraction pumps which are damaging marshlands protected under the LIFE programme.

In view of the fact that the EAGGF regulation establishes a framework for the application of Community aid to underpin sustainable rural development, has the Commission considered opening an enquiry (including the dispatch of a delegation to Almenara if this is deemed necessary) into the damage done to the Almenara wetlands as a result of agricultural activities financed by the EAGGF? Does the Commission not think that EAGGF funds and other possible forms of aid should be used to increase agricultural employment in activities which will not damage the area in question, which is protected under the LIFE programme?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The ‘Marjal de Almenara’ site in Valencia has been proposed by Spain as a Site of Community Importance for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). The Commission is currently supporting this site as part of a LIFE-nature project. C 26 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

The Commission has written to the Spanish authorities requesting information on the specific situation at the Marjal de Almenara site described by the Honourable Member and asking for their comments, in particular as regards compliance with Community legislation in force.

It should be noted that the new rural development policy adopted in June 1999, to which the Honourable Member refers, has become the second cornerstone of the common agricultural policy. The support given to sustainable rural development by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (2), relating to agricultural activities and their reconversion, may concern, inter alia, the preservation and promotion of a high nature value and a sustainable agriculture respecting environmental requirements. Member States may include in their rural development programmes and Objective 1 operational programmes the establishment of the Natura 2000 network and the preservation of areas in the network. Compensatory payments can be made by the EAGGF for the maintenance of agricultural activity in these areas where farmers may lose income because of specific requirements deriving from the application of Community legislation, as would be the case in the area in question. Under the same Regulation investments with environmental protection objectives could also be cofinanced.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 26 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0521/00 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Rules on the manufacture of lint to be used for medicinal purposes

Under Directive 93/42/EEC (1) on medical devices, all medical devices marketed within the EU must carry the CE mark, which guarantees that the device meets the requirements laid down in the directive. On account of those requirements, European companies have had to make substantial investment and they have to bear the additional cost of quality management.

On the other hand, products made in China arrive at Community hospitals carrying the CE mark but they are not required to meet the standards demanded of Community companies. They do not therefore provide the medical guarantees offered by the CE mark and their manufacturers have not had to make the huge investment required of EU producers.

Is the Commission aware of this state of affairs? If so, what action does it intend to take in response to it?

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

The Commission would like to stress that medical devices put on the market and into service in the Community and the European economic area (EEA), are submitted to the same rules and requirements regardless whether they are manufactured in the Community or EEA or imported from third countries.

Therefore the manufacturer or authorised representative, whenever the manufacturer does not have a registered place of business in a Member State, has to fulfil the provisions as laid down in Directive 93/42/ EEC, and to ensure and declare their conformity. Then it can CE mark the devices.

On the other hand, it is up to Member States’ authorities to ensure that the manufacturer duly fulfils its obligations. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/57

Member States take all necessary steps that devices may be placed on the market and put into service only if they do not compromise the safety and health of patients and users. They shall use the ‘safeguard clause’ whenever the health or safety of patients and users are put at risk. Under this clause, measures can be taken to withdraw such devices from the market or prohibit or restrict their being placed on the market or put into service.

Finally the Directive states that Member States shall not create any obstacle to the placing on the market or the putting into service within their territory of devices bearing the CE marking.

(2001/C 26 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0524/00 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE), Joan Colom i Naval (PSE), Paulo Casaca (PSE), Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) and Georges Garot (PSE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Protecting European nut production

The close of 1999 marked the end of the scheduled transitional period between the old rules governing nuts (Regulations (EEC) No 2159/89 (1) and (EEC) No 790/89 (2)) expiring and the entry into force of the general reform of the fruit and vegetables sector (Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (3)), which involves the inclusion of nuts (i.e almonds, hazelnuts, sweet chestnuts and walnuts) in the new COM.

So the new regulation puts an end to the special support measures which, however limited (with flat-rate aid provided for hazelnuts only), demonstrated the Community’s interest in a sector which is not only significant in terms of output, but also plays an irreplaceable role in terms of maintaining agricultural and environmental balance and conserving the landscape in many regions of the EU. Failure to take this factor into account in recent years has led to a number of natural disasters in Europe. Moreover, these measures were a useful means of offsetting the difficulties encountered by farms producing nuts, either as their principal crop or as a sideline, because of the marginal nature of the land. Finally, the sector is overlooked in the course of negotiations on free trade agreements with third countries. Consequently nut production is being gradually abandoned, even though demand remains stable, thus exacerbating Europe’s balance of trade deficit in these products.

What action does the Commission intend to take in connection with the new rules to ensure proper recognition of this sector, which mainly concerns regions whose development is lagging behind? Does the Commission agree that it is necessary to review the level of financial support and the nature of the aid provided to that sector, while coordinating the various organisational strategies of the new COM with the measures required to maintain precarious social and economic structures and preserve traditional agricultural and environmental features in fragile rural areas?

Could the Commission consider the possibility of maintaining flat-rate aid for hazelnuts for a set period and introducing measures to provide support per hectare, with such aid being differentiated according to the main crops and conditional on the adoption of binding land use safeguards in the context of the new rules on rural development?

(1) OJ L 207, 19.7.1989, p. 19. (2) OJ L 85, 30.3.1989, p. 6. (3) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The Commission is well aware of the difficulties that have, in the past, beset the nut sector, including the structural deficiencies leading to low productivity and high costs. It was in direct recognition of these difficulties that financial support was granted to the sector under the provisions of Title IIa of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and C 26 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

vegetables (specific measures for nuts and locust beans). A number of important measures were made available to producers of almonds, hazelnuts, walnuts, pistachios or locust beans marketing their produce through a recognised producer organisation. The most significant measure has been the quality and marketing improvement plan, yielding Community financing over a maximum period of 10 years per plan.

This scheme represents a very significant financial commitment on behalf of the Community, considering the specific nature of the nut sector. From 1990 to 1999, total Community expenditure (excluding promotion) was € 725 million. Expenditure will continue until the expiry of the last plans in 2006.

These improvement plans have met with considerable success, in terms of regrouping supply, providing income support for farmers and structural improvements.

However, it has always been stipulated that the aid for improvement plans should be temporary and degressive, in order to allow a progressive shift of financial responsibility on to the producers. To continue with a per-hectare aid would undermine such efforts made in the last 10 years. The same philosophy applies to the flat rate aid for hazelnuts, introduced in 1997 to help hazelnut producers face up to temporarily difficult economic conditions. Those producer organisations that have benefited for over 10 years from measures such as the improvement plans should have built up sufficient competitiveness to survive as successful operations. In addition they can continue to benefit from financing under the operational funds introduced by Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1).

Based on these considerations, from a market point of view there is no justification for the granting of a per-hectare aid for the nut sector or the continuation of the flat-rate aid for hazelnuts.

However, the Commission would be in favour of measures which supported the social and environmental aspects of nut production. This would contribute to maintaining rural employment and maintaining plantations in less-favoured areas and on marginal land, in particular in areas where there is a real risk of erosion. Support for this type of measure would be best carried out in the framework of the rural development schemes.

(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972.

(2001/C 26 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0525/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Iron Rhine

In answer to Question No E-2381/99 (1) concerning the Iron Rhine Mrs de Palacio states that the Belgium- Netherlands arbitration treaty and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties deriving therefrom ‘do not specify the precise location of the railway track inside this area (the Sittard canton)’. According to the Commission, this means that the Belgian Federation and the Netherlands ‘will have to agree … on the manner in which the right of way is made effective’.

The Commission’s position ignores the actual situation on the ground. The right of way was already made effective between 1869 and 1879 with the construction of the very first cross-border railway link in Europe. Consequently, the precise location of the railway track has been clearly specified since that time.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does it appreciate that its position on agreement having to be reached ‘on the manner in which the right of way is made effective’ ignores the actual situation on the ground since the right of way was made effective between 1869 and 1879 and ‘the precise location of the railway track inside this area (the Sittard canton)’ is thus clearly specified? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/59

2. If so, does the Commission regard the Iron Rhine that was constructed between 1869 and 1879 as the realisation of the right of way to which reference is made in the Belgium-Netherlands arbitration treaty and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties deriving therefrom?

3. If not, does the Commission then not regard the Iron Rhine constructed between 1869 and 1879 as the realisation of the right of way to which reference is made in the Belgium-Netherlands arbitration treaty and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties deriving therefrom? What arguments does the Commission advance for not regarding the Iron Rhine constructed between 1869 and 1879 as the realisation of the right of way to which reference is made in the Belgium-Netherlands arbitration treaty and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties deriving therefrom?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 35.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

In reply to the Honourable Member’s written question E-2381/99 (1), the Commission indicated that as far as it knows, the precise location of the railway track inside the area of the Sittard Canton was not specified in the Treaties. Of course it cannot deny that a railway line has been built and exists in reality.

However, it is not for the Commission to direct the Dutch government to implement any non-EC Treaty obligation it may have entered into. Nor is it for the Commission to decide whether the terms of such obligations have been met.

The Commission understands that representatives of the Belgian, German and Dutch Governments formed a trilateral working party to discuss the reopening of the route. Following meetings of that working party last year, ministers from the three Member States concerned agreed last December 1999 that a further cross-border study of the definitive route should be carried out, to examine in particular the environmental and other constraints on its development. This is necessary since the Dutch section of the route passes through areas which are environmentally sensitive and are covered by the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/CEE of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (2).

The Commission is currently considering a formal request from the Belgian authorities to extend the Community funds already committed to the project to cover this study.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 35. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 26 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0526/00 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(21 February 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of veterinary medicines and pesticide product licensing

What progress has been made in harmonising veterinary and pesticide product licensing arrangements?

What are the main obstacles to progress?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

Council Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (1), stipulates that a veterinary medicinal product can only be placed on the market if the documentation shows that the requirements on safety, quality and efficiency have been fulfilled. These C 26 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

requirements are laid down in Council Directive 81/852/EEC on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to analytical, pharmaco-toxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of veterinary medicinal products (2). Furthermore, this Directive requires that medicines for animals intended for food consumption contain only pharmacologically active substances that have positively been evaluated. For these substances, residues have to be evaluated according to Council Regulation (EEC) no 2377/90 (3) and a withdrawal time has to be established, which determines when after the treatment food products may be taken from the treated animals.

In the context of a general evaluation of the veterinary medicines approval system, the Commission has recently started the process of evaluating the entire system of authorisation and supervision of medicinal products in the Community. Based on this evaluation, a proposal for modifications to the existing system will be made to the Council and Parliament in 2001.

Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4) on the placing of plant protection products on the market stipulates that the authorisation of pesticides products is the responsibility of the Member States and that such authorisations may only be made for those products containing pesticides active substances in Annex I to the Directive. Detailed uniform principles for the authorisation of plant protection products are laid out in Annex VI to the Directive and Member States are obliged to respect these principles when granting such authorisations.

For those substances for which a Commission decision has been taken not to include them in Annex I to the Directive, no authorisations may be made and existing authorisations must be rescinded. For those active substances that were already on the market on 1 June 1993 and where a decision has not yet been taken to include in or to exclude from Annex I, Member States may continue to grant authorisations up until 1st July 2003 in accordance with the basic provisions of Article 4 (concerning safety requirements) of the Directive.

The Commission will report to the Council and the Parliament in July 2001 on the operation of the Directive and based on the conclusions of that report, may propose amendments to existing legislation and procedures.

The Commission is aware of differences in a small number of cases between the residue evaluations performed in products containing the same substance but used for different purposes. These products that may have a dual use, such as pesticides and veterinary medicines, have different legal classifications. These divergences are currently under discussion at both European level and on a wider international basis, under the Codex alimentarius framework.

(1) (OJ L 317, 6.11.1981), as amended by Council Directive 90/676/EEC (OJ L 373, 31.12.1990) and Council Directive 93/40/EEC (OJ L 214, 24.8.1993). (2) OJ L 317, 6.11.1981. (3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 224, 18.8.1990) Amended by Council Regulation (EC) no 434/97 of 3 March 1997 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 67, 7.3.1997). (4) OJ L 230, 10.8.1991.

(2001/C 26 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0548/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: World Cup tickets

Further to the reply to my Written Question E-2342/99 (1), would the Commission kindly indicate which Commission officials received World Cup football tickets, whether gifts of such nature must be declared, what the conditions are for staff accepting gifts and whether it intends to change working practice in this area?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 109. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/61

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

The Commission does not have a general record of which officials were provided with tickets, whether paid for or free of charge, for the football World Cup. However, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer to Written Question E-2342/99 in respect of officials working in the Competition Directorate General.

The general rules relevant to gifts to officials working in all EU Institutions are in Article 11 of the Staff Regulations which state that officials ‘shall not without permission of the appointing authority accept from any source outside the Institution any decoration… favour, gift or payment of any kind whatever….’

The Commission’s internal rules (delivered to the Commission staff on 19 February 1996 with Adminis- trative Notice No 926) set out criteria for publications, speeches and gifts. They make clear that officials should discourage the offering of gifts, but provide, inter alia, that ‘staff may be allowed to accept gifts worth less than Ecu/Euro 250’. They further state that trips or weekends away organised by a third party can only be allowed if the attendance of the official is in the Commission’s interest.

However, it is clear that not all invitations meetings or events, which may include meals, should be regarded as gifts or favours within the meaning of Article 11. Meetings, events and other informal contacts between senior officials and industry, Member States or third countries often include invitations. Such contacts may well be relevant to the fulfilment of officials’ tasks. Moreover, within reasonable limits, they may also be considered as part of the representational duties of senior officials.

The Commission therefore does not believe that acceptance of invitations to football matches or similar events necessarily constitutes a breach of the rules or automatically risks compromising the independence or integrity of officials. Clearly, if evidence was provided that an attempt had been made on any occasion to compromise the integrity or independence of an official, or that an official’s obligation of duty had been breached as a consequence of the provision of tickets or hospitality, the appropriate action would be taken.

So far as changes in working practices are concerned: In the Action Plan which was adopted as part of the Reform Strategy White Paper on 1 March 2000, the Commission announced that it would ‘codify and simplify the texts implementing the Staff Regulations in order to ensure transparency and fairness’ in their application. The Commission intends to review its guidelines in this context. Since the Staff Regulations apply to all EU Institutions the Commission believes that there should be common rules to assist officials and their superiors in dealing with cases such as the one referred to by the Honourable Member. It will therefore present new draft guidelines to the Heads of Administration with a view to reaching an inter- institutional agreement.

(2001/C 26 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0552/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Compliance with the environmental protection laws with regard to the Mugello borrow pit

A project has been drawn up for the excavation of a large borrow pit in Galliano di Mugello (Florence province), which will also involve the setting up of a crushing plant for the Bologna-Florence mountain bypass. The site of the pit is not included in any general development schemes or plans.

The Territorial Plan for Provincial Coordination (PTCP) defines the area as a ‘vulnerable area which has already been damaged by flooding and which is still subject to such risks’. C 26 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

The two streams near the site Taviano and Sorcella are subject to the environmental constraints of Law No 431/85 (the so-called Galasso Law) and the scheme would also ruin the Gabbianello ornithological lake project, which is nearing completion and which was funded by public money.

Furthermore, the site is in an area at high risk of earthquakes, as many studies have shown, and the choice of site conflicts with the Italian Ministry of the Environment’s ‘rules and guidelines’ on the choice of location for pits and landfill sites, published in 1993.

Near the area, there is a medieval 13th century bridge which is already in a somewhat precarious state and which is governed by existing laws on the cultural and architectural heritage; there are also several listed historic buildings.

Lastly, the site is in an ‘area of great importance for rural tourism’ (Regional Council Decision No 104/ 1989) and even though the Town Council of Barberino voted against the excavation of the pit, the project still seems to be going ahead.

In the light of the above, what action does the Commission intend to take to ensure compliance with the numerous laws on the protection of the environment and the architectural heritage and town planning?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The project for the excavation of a large borrow pit in Galliano di Mugello (Florence) mentioned by the Honourable Member, falls within Annex II of both Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on environmental impact assessment (EIA) of certain private and public projects and Directive 97/11/EC (2) which modifies Directive 85/337/EEC.

Directive 85/337/EEC establishes that certain public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment, by virtue inter alia, of their nature, size or location, are made subject of an assessment with regard to their effects. Classes of projects covered by the directive are listed in the two Annexes. Article 4(2) states: Projects of the classes listed in Annex II shall be made subject to an assessment, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10, where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. Pursuant to Directive 97/11/EC, for projects listed in Annex II, Member States are obliged to determine, through a case-by-case examination, or thresholds or criteria set by the Member State, whether the project is to be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

The EIA legislation of Regione Toscana (Legge Regionale 3 novembre 1998, n. 79) is stricter than the directives and provides that borrow pits are automatically made subject to an EIA procedure. An EIA procedure covers and assesses the environmental aspects mentioned by the Honourable Member. Given the lack of specific grounds of complaint on the application of the EIA procedure to the specific case, no breach of the two mentioned directives can be identified at present.

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

(2001/C 26 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0564/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Tax on profits

Will the Commission indicate the percentage rate on company profits in each Member State and also indicate any estimates that have been made recently of the effective rate of such tax after allowing for exemptions and allowances in each Member State? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/63

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

At the moment, the Commission is not able to cite the data requested by the Honourable Member.

However, following a mandate of the Council, the Commission is currently undertaking a study on the effective level of company taxation in the Member States. This study will be finalised in the second half of the current year. The report will contain information concerning the effective levels of corporate taxation in the Member States. These rates will be compared to the statutory rates.

As far as other recent estimates are concerned, the Dutch government commissioned three studies in 1999 on the effective tax burden in the Community. These studies contain tables concerning the statutory rates and the effective rates and are available through Internet at http://www.minfin.nl/,select British flag, select ‘tax competition in the European Union’.

(2001/C 26 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0569/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Council secrecy

Will the Council please name any other legislative body in any other state or legislative area, other than itself, which meets in secret with the results that those affected by a decision are unable to know the considerations that led to a decision, or which representatives on the legislature took which point of view? If it agrees that the only two such legislatures are those of Cuba and North Korea, how does it justify its practices being placed in the same category as two pariah states?

(2001/C 26 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0571/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Accountability

Does the Council agree that it is an essential part of the democratic process for those affected by decisions to know how their representatives voted when such decisions were taken so that their electorates can hold them to account?

(2001/C 26 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0572/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Transparency

How does the Council intend to implement the various commitments which it has given concerning EU transparency, particularly with regard to its own decisions? C 26 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0569/00, E-0571/00 and E-0572/00

(8 June 2000)

All the members of the Council agree that openness and transparency are an essential element of the democratic process. As stated in the Preamble to the Treaty on European Union, our common objective is to create an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizens.

The Council has on several occasions reaffirmed its determination to work towards greater transparency, while at the same time preserving the effectiveness of its decision-making process.

This is shown by the following measures which have been taken:

after each Council meeting a press release is issued which gives information about the decisions adopted by the Council and indicates the decisions for which statements for the minutes have been made available to the public. Those statements may be obtained from the Press Office immediately after the Council meeting. These press releases themselves, as well as the voting results of legislative acts and statements for the minutes, are also available to the public via the Council website;

a monthly summary of Council acts is available to the public. This summary contains a list of legislative and non-legislative acts of the Council, including the results of votes, explanations of voting and statements for the minutes when the Council is acting in its capacity as legislator. It should be noted that only minutes adopted are official. They can be accessed at the ‘EUDOR’ website under ‘Transparency of the Council’s legislative activities’. Information on the Council’s legislative transparency can also be obtained by e-mail at the address: [email protected];

the Council also holds open debates on the Presidency’s programme on General Affairs and Ecofin matters. The Council may decide to hold other open debates as well;

public access to Council documents is governed by Council Decision 93/731 of 20 December 1993. The number of document requests from the public has steadily increased since the adoption of this Decision. Furthermore, on 1 January 1999 a public register of Council documents was opened on the Council website, thus enabling our citizens to identify Council documents and apply for them. Since the opening of this register, the number of applications for Council documents has more than doubled. Documents relating to cases where the Council acts in its legislative capacity are in principle released to the public once the Council act is adopted;

since January of this year a list of items on the provisional agendas of meetings of the Council and its preparatory bodies referring to cases where the Council acts in its legislative capacity, as defined in Article 6 of its Rules of Procedure, is made available to the public on the Council website. In addition, the timetable of Council meetings is published on the Council website.

Finally, the Commission has submitted its proposal on public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents in order to implement Article 255 of the Treaty on European Union. This new legislation will have to be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council according to the codecision procedure.

(2001/C 26 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0578/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Taxing aviation kerosene

I refer to my Question E-2169/99 (1) and the answer in which the Commission supports the principle of taxing aviation kerosene but ascribes the absence of taxation today to the international legal situation. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/65

Should we not be seeking to have the Chicago Convention, which dates back to the first half of the last century, revised in this respect? In the meantime, flights within Europe should be classified as internal flights and the proceeds of a kerosene tax used to fund environmental projects.

Is the Commission contemplating bold action along these lines?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 63.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The conclusions of the Commission in respect of a comprehensive study on the impact of the imposition of excise duties on kerosene have recently been presented in the communication on air transport and the environment (1) and the communication on taxation of aircraft fuel (2). The Commission will include the views of the Parliament on these two documents when developing further policies in this field.

There may well be a need for modernising the basic international law on aviation (Chicago convention) but this is a much broader issue and taxation is not really an issue in this context.

It is important to recognise that the Chicago convention itself does not pose the major concern regarding taxation of fuel used in international aviation. Current legal constraints stem from standard clauses in bilateral air services agreements concluded between signatory states of the Chicago conventions which are based on a decision by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) that fuel for use in international air transport shall be exempted from taxation.

The communication on air transport and environment as well as the communication on taxation of aircraft fuel contain a detailed assessment of the impact of imposition of excise duties on aviation fuel for intra-Community flights operated by Community air carriers.

(1) COM(1999) 640 final. (2) COM(2000) 110 final.

(2001/C 26 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0584/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

How can the Commission continue to actively support the Council of Ministers in setting up a strategy for further integration and reinforcing the integration of environmental issues into transport systems?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The European Council in Helsinki approved the conclusions of the Transport Council of October 1999, according to which the Commission must come up with a global strategy by June 2001 to integrate the environment and sustainable mobility into transport policy and implement the appropriate measures. C 26 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

As announced in its work programme for 2000, the Commission will be presenting a communication on the revision of the common transport policy. This communication will take account of the undertakings made under the Kyoto Protocol by both the Commission and the Member States.

The Commission will be assisted in its task by the group of joint experts on the environment and transport, whose work and findings will add to the Commission’s information and make it more detailed.

This group of experts was already involved in the preparatory phase of the integration strategy adopted by the Transport Council on 6 October 1999.

(2001/C 26 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0585/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

Will the Commission say how it can strengthen the environmental assessments of policy initiatives with particular reference to CO2 emissions and the climate change issue?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

As the question relates to transport policy, the response will focus on this area. The question could also be seen in a more general context, as policy initiatives with an impact on climate change emanate from other policy areas as well.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from transport have to be seen as part of the overall area of transport and environment. This overall approach is important in order to avoid sub-optimal solutions that could lead to losses in other environmental areas (for example, replacing petrol by diesel without flanking measures would reduce CO2 emissions but could increase particulate emissions). The Commission has been operating a joint transport and environment expert group involving experts from the Member States’ transport and environment ministries in order to support its integration efforts towards an environmentally sustainable transport system. This group made recommendations that provided essential support to the Finnish presidency in drawing up the Transport Council’s integration strategy of 6 October 1999. The group is now involved in the follow-up and the preparation for reviewing this strategy.

Apart from this integration activity which concerns all environmental aspects in transport, climate change included, the Commission has now adopted the communication on ‘EU Policies and Measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Towards a European Climate Change Programme (ECCP)’ (1). The communication includes a list of potential Community policies and measures, as requested by the Environment Council in October 1999. These will be developed under the ECCP. Transport plays an important role in this framework. The details of how transport will contribute to the ECCP are currently being worked out.

The activities mentioned above will be significant in connection with the review of the common transport policy that is scheduled for the second half of this year, as well as for the planned green paper on urban transport.

(1) COM(2000) 88 final. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/67

(2001/C 26 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0586/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

Will the Commission indicate how, and to what extent, national transport policy-makers in EU Member States have been influenced by the development of a common European transport policy particularly as regards the creation of environmentally sustainable transport systems?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (19 April 2000)

Most Member States have begun introducing national policies designed to incorporate environmental considerations. The European Council meeting in Cardiff and subsequent European Councils boosted the integration process which must now be sustained and must result in real decisions and the introduction of new instruments to promote, evaluate and oversee the process.

Many new measures have been implemented, although in some areas certain Member States are more active than others. A particular example is the link between the reduction in lead emissions and the introduction of tax differentiation for leaded and unleaded petrol.

At Community level, the Environment Agency has developed the transport environment reporting mechanism which enables progress in incorporating environmental considerations into the transport sector in Member States to be monitored. Its first report is expected in April 2000.

In the context of trans-European network policy, Article 8 of Parliament and Council Decision 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (1) reinforces the Member States’ commitment to make environmental impact assessments when they develop and carry out projects of common interest, in line with Council Directive 85/337/EC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3). Moreover, in accordance with Article 18 of the above-mentioned Decision, Member States are obliged to regularly notify the Commission of the national plans and programmes which they have drawn up for the development of the trans-European transport network, in particular for projects of common interest.

As regards environmentally sustainable transport systems in cities, and mindful of the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission has focused its efforts on exchanging good practices. In particular, it has contributed by financing ELTIS (European Local Transport Information Service), which is a database of information about local and regional passenger transport, available to elected representatives, politicians, transport operators and managers and, of course, transport users. This database features many case studies and a forum open to the public. Lastly, the database of good practices in the field of urban planning and sustainable development contains good examples of sustainable development.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 26 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0590/00 by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Council (2 March 2000)

Subject: EBRD loans to Russian energy companies

Can the Council say whether it has any plans to review the operation of the EBRD’s Agreement and Guidelines for lending to Russian energy companies? C 26 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(26 June 2000)

The Council has, as such, no competence to review the operation of the Agreement and Guidelines for lending of the EBRD, which institution was created by an international agreement concluded between, at the time, 39 European and non European countries, such as the USA and Japan on the one hand and the EU and the EIB on the other hand.

(2001/C 26 E/085) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0602/00 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Outbreak of avian influenza in some parts of Italy

In connection with the avian flu epidemic currently affecting some parts of Italy, which has led to the death or slaughter of seven million birds.

Can the Commission state:

what methods were used for the slaughter of the birds that did not die as a direct cause of the epidemic, who they were slaughtered by, on whose authorisation and at which sites and how many birds have been slaughtered;

whether and in what way the provisions of Directive 93/119/EC (1) (transposed by means of Legislative Decree No 333 of 1 September 1998) have been complied with;

what method has been chosen for the disposal of the birds slaughtered as a result of the epidemic?

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

By mid March 2000 the Italian authorities had reported 368 outbreaks of avian influenza. The outbreaks have occurred in different kinds of species and production types. About 12,2 million birds have been killed at infected poultry farms and 3 million at farms considered as contact farms or as being high risk farms.

Exact data for birds that died because of the disease and those which have definitively been killed in the affected farms are not yet available. One reason for the missing figures is that the disease can cause mortality that can reach up to 100 % in a very short period of time. Animals often die while arrangements for their destruction are being made.

The method of killing birds was discussed at the meeting of the standing veterinary committee in January and again in March 2000. At the later meeting the Italian delegation announced that the provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EEC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing (1) were being applied. This Directive (Annex C) lists the permitted methods of killing poultry as electrocution, exposure to carbon dioxide, decapitation, dislocation of the neck and the use of a vacuum chamber. During execution specific requirements must be fulfilled within the framework of the overall objective (Article 3) of this Directive; thus to spare animals ‘any avoidable excitement, pain or suffering during movement, lairaging, restraint, stunning, slaughter or killing’. In addition to the killing methods referred to above the competent authority may apply other killing methods for disease control during epidemics (Annex E). In such situations the methods applied must be in compliance with the general provisions of 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/69

Article 3 of the Directive. The Italian epidemiological centre for the region of Veneto has, in co-operation with the national reference laboratory for avian influenza, published an operational manual (2) in case of occurrence of avian influenza. This manual comprises the different methods for the killing of different types of poultry flocks.

Carcasses of dead birds were either buried or taken to rendering plants.

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993. (2) Manuale Operativo in caso di Influenza aviaria, Anno 1999, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Centro Regionale Epidemiologia Veterinaria Regione Veneto, Laboratorio Nazionale di Riferimento Influenza aviaria.

(2001/C 26 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0603/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Setting up the Southwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation

The EU is taking part in the talks on setting up the Southwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, a new multilateral body for fishing in West African waters. Since the fishing industry may be affected by this new body, what position will the EU be adopting with regard to consulting the industry?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Commission takes care to consult the fishing industry when preparing for negotiations within the international fishery organisations.

For instance, it organised a meeting (Brussels, 17 March) to consult the organisations with an interest in the work of the Resource Allocation Group of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

Such consultation would be premature in the case of the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation since the instruments to establish it are only at the preparatory stage. The industry will be consulted when it has been set up.

(2001/C 26 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0604/00 by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2000)

Subject: Budget heading B7-6000

1. Will the Commission list all projects submitted under the abovementioned budget heading for the years 1998 and 1999?

2. Will it list all projects which have received funding under the abovementioned budget heading for the years 1998 and 1999?

3. Will it indicate the timescale and details of the selection procedure used for projects submitted under the budget heading in question? C 26 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

4. Finally, will it give details of the progress of the project entitled ‘Improving health conditions in 24 villages in the diocese of Daloa Costa D’Avorio’, which was submitted on 7 May 1999 and given the reference ONG/PVD/1998/IT, but in respect of which the organisers have so far received no reply from the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

The Commission is forwarding direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament lists of all those projects which have been submitted under this budget line for the years 1998 and 1999 and of those which received funding.

The Commission tries to respect the limit of six months for decision on projects laid down in Council Regulation No 1658 of 17 July 1998. New management measures are being put into place in the year 2000 to try to ensure respect of this six month deadline.

However in recent years this has not been possible due to the numbers of projects received and insufficiency of staff resources. Moreover the majority of non governmental organisation (NGO) proposals require further dialogue following comments and suggestions received from the Commission delegations, geographic units and technical experts which can lead to further delays.

In the past, the selection procedure was on the basis of an assessment of each project by the delegation, geographic unit and technical experts. A decision was made to accept or reject the project on the basis of these assessments. In some cases a project is rejected because of the clear ineligibility of the NGO or project under the general conditions for cofinancing.

New general conditions for cofinancing were agreed by the Commission in January 2000. In the future, implementing the recommendations of the vade mecum on grant management, the Commission will use a call for proposals with the establishment of selection committees. However, consultation of the delegations and the geographic units will continue to play an important role.

There is at present a carry over of approximately 926 projects from 1999 for a value of 317,6 M€. It is intended to process these in the first half of 2000. Decisions made will be verified by selection committees in the pre-selection and final selection phase following consultations with the delegations and geographic units. The project referred to (ONG/PVD/1998/258) is under appraisal but had to be carried over from 1999 due to lack of funds. A decision will be made in the first half of 2000.

The NGOs are being kept fully informed of developments in the management of the budget line through the Commission’s own recently established web-site for NGOs (europa.eu.int/comm/development) and through the liaison committee of NGOs and its national platforms.

(2001/C 26 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0607/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: EU social and economic protection cover for Malaga’s shellfishers

Over five hundred shellfishers have been affected by the Andalusian regional government’s decision to close off four fishing grounds in the province of Malaga because the toxicity levels in shellfish caught there makes them unfit for consumption. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/71

This decision is nothing short of a disaster for the working lives of the fishermen, whatever the appropriateness of the measure in health terms.

What provisions does the common fisheries policy make for social and economic cover for workers like the Malaga fishermen, whose working lives have been catastrophically affected by factors entirely outwith their control?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern about the Malaga fishermen affected by closure of the shellfish fishery for health reasons. It points out that under the terms of Article 16 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) Member States may grant compensation to fishermen for temporary cessation of activities under unforeseeable circumstances, in particular cessation for biological reasons.

Such support is additional to that of the general structural measures for fleet adjustment, modernisation and renewal. Each case of restructuring a fleet affected by reduced fishing potential requires approval by the Commission following examination of the proposal in the light of the rules applicable.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2001/C 26 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0612/00 by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Need for European regulations on the use of pesticides in horticulture

According to reports, Belgium permits the use in horticulture of certain plant protection products (tolyfluanil and myclobutanil) that are prohibited in France. On the other hand, there are certain plant protection products that are permitted in France but prohibited in Belgium. On the basis of its national legislation France in some cases holds Belgian exports of horticultural products. The Belgian products are thus placed in an unfavourable light in France, which can have far-reaching consequences for Belgian exports. The Belgian authorities, however, do not carry out any comparable checks on French horticultural products.

1. Is there European legislation on the use of plant protection products in horticulture?

2. If so, what provisions does this legislation contain?

3. If not, does the Commission not consider that there is a need to draw up European provisions so as to prevent distortions of competition between the Member States?

4. Apart from whether or not there is European legislation, under what circumstances is France permitted to prevent or hinder the import of Belgian horticultural products?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

1 - 3. The use of plant protection products is regulated by Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 (1) concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. The main objectives of this Directive are to (a) ensure a high level of protection of human health, for the consumer and for the C 26 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

producers of agricultural commodities, (b) ensure a high level of protection of the environment and resources and (c) ensure free circulation of plant protection products and agricultural produce in the Community.

The Directive provides for a positive list of accepted active substances that are considered as safe for human and animal health and the environment after a thorough evaluation. However, the authorization of individual products remains within the responsibility of individual Member States (subsidiarity) and this constitutes a second check of the safety of a plant protection product under the specific conditions of use in that Member State.

The Directive provides that Member States can only authorize a plant protection product if the active substances it contains are listed in the positive list and provided certain criteria concerning efficacy and safety for humans and the environment are satisfied. These criteria are harmonised (the so-called uniform principles) as are the data that industry has to submit when applying for an authorization.

For all the active substances already on the market when the Directive entered into force in July 1993, a derogation allows Member States to continue to grant authorizations for plant protection products not yet included in the positive list, pending the current gradual re-evaluation of all such active substances. The Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the work programme in Council Directive 91/ 414/EEC (2) to facilitate and speed up this review.

The Directive provides for a system of obligatory acceptance of an authorization given in one Member State, to the extent that the agricultural, plant health and environmental (including climatic) conditions are comparable in another Member State.

4. Related to the issue of the authorisation of plant protection products, is the issue of their residues in horticultural products. Community maximum levels of pesticides residues (MRLs) in horticultural products are fixed in the annexes to Council Directives 76/895/EEC of 23 November 1976 (3) and 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 (4) for a wide variety of pesticides. These MRLs are binding throughout the Commun- ity. The work of setting these MRLs is a continuous task that is not yet complete. For those combinations of pesticide and commodity where a Community MRL has not yet been fixed, then the situation in the Member States is unharmonised and individual Member States may set national MRLs.

It is entirely possible that a situation could arise whereby an authorisation for use exists in one Member State and a corresponding national MRL also exists in that Member State whereas in another Member State no authorisation exists and a national MRL of zero exists. This would create a situation whereby the second Member State could legitimately block imports of produce containing residues from the first Member State.

Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 (5) provided for a conciliation procedure at Community level for such cases where bilateral discussions between the Member States were unsuccessful in resolving such trade disputes.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991. (2) OJ L 55, 29.2.2000. (3) OJ L 340, 9.12.1976. (4) OJ L 350, 14.12.1990. (5) OJ L 184, 12.7.1997.

(2001/C 26 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0628/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council (2 March 2000)

Subject: Kosovo: establishing the truth about the mass murders in Racak in January 1999, with reference to the report by Dr Helena Ranta, EU observer in Pristina

1. Does the Council recall the report that on 15 January 1999 the Serbian army marched into the Kosovar village of Racak and abducted 45 ethnic Albanian men, whose bodies were subsequently discovered, and that this atrocity was one of the causes of the war that was fought later in 1999 over Kosovo? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/73

2. Is the Council aware of the press report of March 1999 by Dr Helena Ranta, a member of the team of European Union forensic experts in Pristina assigned at the request of the OSCE who examined 40 bodies on 22 January 1999, in which she expresses serious doubts about the credibility of the then accepted view on the mass murder referred to in Question 1?

3. Is the Council in possession of a more detailed report on this event by Dr Ranta and her team or from another official source? Is this report, or are these reports, available to the public?

4. Can the Council say whether the implicit recommendation in Dr Ranta’s report, that there should first be a thorough police investigation to give an overall picture of what happened in Racak, has been followed up?

5. If so, are the results available? If not, why have these recommendations not (yet) been followed up?

6. Does the Council have copies of the reports on the post mortems carried out on the civilian victims in Racak to which Dr Ranta’s report refers?

7. Is the Council prepared, if only to ease the tension in the area concerned, to press for the continuation of the investigation into the real circumstances surrounding the mass murder in Racak as far as possible and for the publication of the findings, even if they depart significantly from the interpretations made public at the time when the victims were discovered?

Reply (8 June 2000)

The Council expressed at the time its outrage at the massacre in Racak. It is aware of press reports published in March 1999, stressing that there were no signs that the victims were anything other than unarmed civilians.

Ms Carla Del Ponte, Prosecutor of the ICTY, stated on 29 September 1999, following her appointment, that the ICTY will continue investigating crimes committed during the armed conflict in Kosovo and that she is determined to prosecute those responsible before the Trial Chambers at The Hague.

It is the understanding of the Presidency that the indictment, confirmed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on 24 May 1999, of Mr Slobodan Milosevic, President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), Mr Milan Milutinovic, President of Serbia, Mr Nikola Sainovic, Deputy Prime Minister of the FRY, Mr Dragoljub Ojdanic, Chief of Staff of the Yugoslav Army, and Mr Vlajko Stojiljkovic, Minister of Internal Affairs of Serbia for murder, persecution and deportation in Kosovo also covers the massacre of Racak.

The Council emphasises the resolve of the Member States of the EU to cooperate fully with the ICTY and to meet their obligations under relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. As recalled by the President of the ICTY on 31 May 1999, these obligations also include that all States and organisations in possession of information pertaining to alleged crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal should make it available to the Prosecutor. The Council, to which the forensic experts mission reported, respected this obligation by transmitting the autopsy reports on the Racak massacre to ICTY under the German Presidency in the first half of 1999. The Council does not see fit to comment further on a pending legal procedure.

(2001/C 26 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0632/00 by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission (3 March 2000)

Subject: Social and economic effects which the reduction in export refunds will have on the production and processing sectors

What effects will the reduction in, or the withdrawal of, export refunds have on the production or processing sector responsible for each of the various agricultural products affected? Have any plans been made for alternative arrangements or for aid of any kind to soften the resulting impact? C 26 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 April 2000)

The Honourable Member is referring to the specific measures announced by the Commission in its communication to the Council (1) and to the fixing of export refunds for products not covered by Annex I to the Treaty for which the rates were reduced by 4,5 % on a flat-rate basis as from 1 November 1999.

This reduction is to be replaced by the application of the abovementioned specific measures, which are intended to ensure that refunds continue to be made for goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty within the framework of the budget appropriations agreed by the budgetary authority.

The specific measures comprise savings and the creation of an additional facility to allow easier access to the inward processing arrangements to enable the Community processing industry to remain competitive on external markets.

The rules for the application of this package of measures and their impact on the various sectors still have to be discussed with the experts of the Member States’ delegations in the appropriate management committees.

(1) COM(1999) 625 final.

(2001/C 26 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0636/00 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council (2 March 2000)

Subject: Repopulation of northern regions in Greece where minorities of Macedonian and Turkish origin are resident

In January 2000 the Greek Parliament adopted a law concerning the return of Greeks coming from former Soviet republics. This legislation states that several thousand citizens are to be accommodated in the northern regions of Greece where sizeable minorities of Macedonian and Turkish origin (Lerin-Florina and Xsanthi regions) are resident.

Can the Council provide detailed information on the practical arrangements for this transfer of population in a Member States of the European Union? Can the Council confirm that thousands of citizens are to be located in the northern provinces where there is a problem with minorities? Is the Council aware of the consequences that significant changes in the demographic situation can produce in sensitive regions?

Reply (8 June 2000)

The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that it is not up to the Council to comment on matters which are the responsibility of a Member State.

(2001/C 26 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/00 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (3 March 2000)

Subject: Recognition of Kurds as a minority and the accession of Turkey

Since the Helsinki summit in December 1999 Turkey has been accepted as a candidate state for accession to the European Union. The conditions for membership are democratisation, improvement of the human rights situation and respect for the criteria of the Copenhagen Treaty. The latter implies recognition of the 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/75

rights of cultural minorities. The European Parliament has already stressed the need for recognition of the rights of the Kurds as a people in Turkey. The recognition of the Kurds as a minority signifies a step towards the acquisition of cultural rights.

The Copenhagen Treaty criteria are not very detailed, which leaves room for interpretation. According to statements by the Prime Minister, Mr Ecevit, at the Helsinki conference, Turkey is making efforts to encourage the achievement of democratisation. With regard to the recognition of the Kurdish language, the position of the Prime Minister is, however, that Turkey’s approach to south-eastern Turkey will change when separatism is no longer an issue there. Such statements indicate that Ecevit will make full use of the grey area with regard to whether or not the Kurds should be granted cultural rights.

There is a danger that vague concessions by Turkey would bring about accession to the European Union. However it is clear that the measures which the Turkish state has adopted so far are not adequate either for Turkey to be seen as a democratic country or for the rights of the Kurds as a minority, let alone as a people, to be guaranteed.

Can the Commission indicate its position on the extent to which Turkey fulfils the accession criteria? What is the Commission’s view on the rights of the Kurds as a cultural minority? What are the Commission’s views on the extent to which Turkey meets the criteria of the Copenhagen Treaty and the recognition of the rights of the Kurds as a cultural minority? What measures will the Commission take to monitor the developments in Turkey with regard to accession and the related criteria?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

In its last regular report adopted in October 1999 (1), the Commission concluded: Recent developments confirm that, although the basic features of a democratic system exist in Turkey, it still does not meet the Copenhagen political criteria. There are serious shortcomings in terms of human rights and protection of minorities […].

Concerning the question of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin, the regular report reiterated the opinion contained in the 1998 report that ‘a civil solution could include recognition of certain forms of Kurdish cultural identity and greater tolerance of the ways of expressing that identity, provided it does not advocate separatism or terrorism’.

A centrepiece of the new pre-accession strategy for Turkey, launched at the European Council in Helsinki in December 1999, is the accession partnership (AP) to be prepared by the Commission before adoption by the Council. The aim of this AP is mainly to set out priorities to be implemented by Turkey in all the fields of the Copenhagen criteria (including the political field) in order to prepare Turkey for Union membership. The monitoring of the implementation of the AP priorities will be regularly done, through appropriate mechanisms such as the association committee as well as in the annual regular reports.

(1) COM(1999) 514 final.

(2001/C 26 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0639/00 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Natural disaster in Mozambique

Sever weather in Mozambique has already driven large numbers of people from their homes, caused heavy loss of livestock (c. 40 000 head of cattle so far), destroyed some 70 000 hectares of crops, mainly millet and rice, and made it extremely difficult to guarantee supplies of drinking water. C 26 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

The economic, social and health problems already caused by the weather conditions may well worsen a fresh cyclone is forecast, and the weakness of Mozambique’s economy means that an adequate and timely response is simply impossible. What emergency measures is the Commission planning to take to help the Mozambique authorities to cope with this disastrous situation?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The Commission is very concerned about the emergency situation in Mozambique. The continuing torrential rains throughout the southern Africa region, aggravated by Cyclone Eline, have led to displacement of large numbers of people and there has been considerable damage to housing and infrastructure. Many people have lost their lives, disappeared or been injured.

The government of Mozambique appealed for humanitarian aid from third countries. The international community has provided substantial assistance in the search and rescue phase (now complete) and to the ongoing relief efforts. Official contributions and pledges to date are estimated at € 100 million, over 60 % of which has come from the Community (Commission and Member States).

The Commission member responsible for development and humanitarian aid visited Mozambique on 2 and 3 March 2000 together with the Portuguese Secretary of State to assess the situation.

In response to the initial flooding caused by heavy rains in early February, the Commission approved € 1 million in emergency relief funding to be channelled by its Humanitarian aid office (ECHO) through Red Cross and non-governmental organisation (NGO) implementing partners, of which € 750 000 went to Mozambique and € 250 000 to Botswana. These agencies addressed the most urgent needs of moving people in danger to more secure areas, while providing essential relief items, emergency shelterhealth care, and water and sanitation. In addition € 1,4 million from the food security budget line has been made locally available to the Commission’s delegate and the Mozambique Government to improve food security for the victims.

In the wake of the further damage wrought by Cyclone Eline, the Commission has processed a second decision for an amount of € 2 million, primarily focusing on emergency relief in the Limpopo and Save river basins (Provinces of Gaza, Inhambane and Sofala), where the destruction and displacement is greatest. A third, more significant ECHO financing decision, drafted in close consultation with partners in Maputo, was endorsed on 14 March 2000 by an inter-service task force (ECHO, DG Dev, SCR) set up to ensure the coherence of the Commission’s short-term and medium-to-long-term intervention. The strategic focus of the third decision will be to promote resettlement through emergency food security (the planting season commences in a few weeks), water and sanitation, health (including small-scale rehabilitation of health centres), and cholera contingency/preparedness.

A senior regional ECHO expert recently completed a 10-day needs assessment mission to Mozambique; a permanent ECHO technical assistant has been recruited and will be deployed in the field next week, where he will monitor the implementation of ECHO funded operations and liaise with the central coordination structure set up by the Government of Mozambique with United Nations support.

The Commission is also preparing a medium-term Community response combining NGO co-financing with European development fund (EDF) operations to help Mozambique in redressing the crisis and in re- establishing the rapid pace of growth for which Mozambique had worked so hard. An additional amount of € 21 million was announced by the member of the Commission during his visit to Mozambique. It is envisaged that this response would link the current phase of emergency through to re-construction within a three to four year horizon. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/77

(2001/C 26 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0643/00 by Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Avian influenza

For about a year, the Italian poultry sector has been hit by avian influenza which has brought about a huge and continuing economic crisis and slump in production.

The industry, consisting not only of the breeding sector, but also of its offshoots, which employ thousands of people and provide a living for their families, has been brought to its knees because production, processing and marketing in the entire sector have ground to a halt.

The only available remedy is that of compensation for direct damage, i.e. for each fowl slaughtered and for the eggs that have to be destroyed.

The entire industry is being damaged by the standstill in production, with no hope of aid, as it has always received little in the way of public subsidies from government institutions.

The H 7 virus has existed in Italy for approximately a year and it will certainly not be prevented from spreading throughout Europe by destroying the entire poultry sector, which has always guaranteed safety and quality in its production of poultrymeat and eggs.

Moreover, the halt in production means that distribution contracts are being lost, and it is liable to create uncertainty for the future of the entire industry.

Given the above, can the Commission amend Directive 92/40 (1) of 19 May 1992 in order to establish a fundamental, targeted, controlled and effective vaccination campaign, so that breeding may resume and that such serious problems may be avoided in the future?

Can the European Union take appropriate action, also in the form of funding, to tackle this emergency, which is affecting the entire poultry sector in Italy, gearing the action not only towards the repair of the direct damage, but also providing instruments to enable the whole industry to become productive and competitive once again?

(1) OJ L 167, 22.6.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

The Commission has followed with great concern the avian influenza epidemic in Italy. The situation has been discussed and reviewed at each standing veterinary committee since December 1999. Up to mid March, 368 outbreaks have occurred and 15.2 million birds had to be destroyed. Two Commission missions were carried out in early January and mid February to do on the spot evaluation of the situation. The measures foreseen in Council Directive 92/40/EEC introducing Community measures for the control of avian influenza and additional measures exceeding the provisions of this Directive, which have been implemented by the Italian authorities, were acknowledged and seemed sufficient to prevent the spread of the disease to other Member States. The Italian efforts to eradicate the disease were recognized by the Member States as the number of new outbreaks per week has significantly decreased and the disease remains more or less confined to the previously affected regions. To reinforce the national measures in place Commission Decision 2000/149/EC (1) was adopted on 22 February 2000 in order to implement supplementary requirements for cleaning and disinfection at farm level and for all means of transport involved in the poultry sector, the packaging material for eggs and rules for staff and other people who come into close contact with poultry. C 26 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Council Directive 92/40/EEC lays down the Community measures for the control of avian influenza. The provisions of this Directive clearly define the pathogenic agent of the disease and govern the control and eradication measures to be applied in the event of outbreaks. In emergency situations, the measures include the potential use of vaccinations to supplement the main control measures. The main measures are killing the birds showing signs of disease, those suspected of being affected by disease on the infected farm and those in other flocks which have been exposed to infection, as well as movement restrictions on live poultry and poultry products to avoid possible spread of the virus. The responsibility for the implementation of control measures rests with the Member States. This means that a Member State will have to carefully evaluate the disease evolution and the effect of the control measures in place before vaccination is commenced. However the decision to introduce emergency vaccination around an outbreak may be taken by the Member State concerned, following notification to the Commission, provided the fundamental interests of the Community are not jeopardised. Such a decision would be re-examined immediately within the standing veterinary committee. In this context it must be emphasised that vaccination may prevent the clinical signs of disease but not prevent circulation of the field virus. Furthermore this epidemiological situation and the health status of flocks will call for certain movement restrictions on poultry kept in areas where vaccination is being carried out.

Concerning financial aid by the Community in the event of an avian influenza epidemic Council Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field (2) foresees a Community financial contribution. This financial aid comprises up to 50 % of the Member State’s costs for the compensation of owners for the destruction of animals, contaminated feedingstuffs and equipment and the cleaning and disinfection of the holdings.

The financial contribution from the Community for the eradication of the disease can only be provided on condition that all the control measures are immediately and correctly applied. The specific support will then be decided by the Commission after advice from the standing veterinary committee.

With regard to the future of the poultry industry in Italy it is evident that the industry should reassess the advantages and disadvantages of producing poultry in areas with a high concentration of poultry. It has for some time been recognised that in areas of high animal density there are multitudes of potential risk factors hampering the rapid eradication of viral diseases. Unrecognised virus replication in flocks with direct or indirect contact with infected flocks may lead to further spread of virus and new outbreaks within and beyond restricted areas.

To avoid major epidemics in the future it is important that contingency plans are well rehearsed, an effective disease awareness is present, movement records are available and that there is a complete participation and dedication of all those engaged in the poultry industry to prevent the spread and to control infectious diseases.

This means on the one hand that farmers, veterinarians, catching crews, hauliers of live animals, feed suppliers and others who have close contact with poultry must accept and display a strong self-discipline during their work to ensure that viruses are not spread from farm to farm. On the other hand decision- makers in livestock production and the agri-food industry need to rethink their structures and policy in the light of the current epidemic.

Since Council Directive 92/40/EEC was adopted, only sporadic cases have occurred with the exception of the actual epidemic in Northern Italy. Assisted by the scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare the Commission will evaluate the provisions of Council Directive 92/40/EEC and will if necessary, present a proposal to the Council to ensure that the provisions reflect the most recent knowledge available on the epidemiology of avian influenza and the most effective prevailing control measures possible.

(1) OJ L 50, 23.2.2000. (2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/79

(2001/C 26 E/096) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0647/00 by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: The artificial lake ‘Lago di Lacina’ in Calabria

Auditors in southern Italy have ascertained that the artificial lake ‘Lago di Lacina’, which appears on many maps of Calabria, does not exist. Furthermore, in 1999 it was discovered that there are 120 hospitals in southern Italy on which building work has never been completed and which have never treated any patients. One of these hospitals is even supposed to have been used by the Mafia to hide weapons. There are also roads which end in the middle of nowhere and factories which have never started production.

Have these projects received funding from the European Union? If so, what kind of funding and how much did they receive? Is it possible to demand repayment of the funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

As far as the Commission knows, no Community contribution has ever been paid towards the Lacina reservoir.

As for the other projects cited by the Honourable Member, the details in the question are not sufficient to be able to identify them and confirm whether they have benefited from Community funds or not, or if any irregularities have occurred in their implementation.

The Commission is willing to help the Honourable Member further if he can supply more precise information.

(2001/C 26 E/097) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0649/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Air transport liberalisation

Considerable progress has now been made on liberalising air transport. Airlines, however, still maintain practices which are against consumers’ interests.

Does the Commission intend to draw up a directive on consumer protection with regard to airlines?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

Air passengers already benefit from certain protection under Community legislation involving, for example, compensation and fair treatment in case of denied boarding, compensation for accidents and the obligations of organisers of package holidays.

Under its work programme for 2000, the Commission will present a communication on strengthening air passengers’ rights, to be ready in June 2000. To prepare this, the Commission has sent out a consultative document, to which there has been a strong response from the many different bodies with an interest in air transport. The document covers contracts and conditions of carriage, business practices, cabin conditions and health questions and information and transparency. C 26 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

The communication will cover passengers’ rights and treatment in a wide sense. It will consider not only legislation but also voluntary commitments taken by airlines, after discussion with the Commission and passengers’ representatives which may sometimes be the most effective course of action.

This is clearly a policy for the medium term. In addition it is essential to raise passengers’ awareness of their existing rights under Community law, so that they can insist on their respect. The Commission plans an immediate initiative to do this, involving the publication and display of a charter of air passengers’ rights in airports and in the offices of airlines and travel agents.

It follows that the Commission has ambitious plans to protect passengers’ rights and improve the service that they receive, with both immediate and medium-term action.

(2001/C 26 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0652/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Air transport liberalisation

At present many passengers miss their air travel connections because airlines, despite computer link-ups between them, do not provide boarding cards for connecting flights operated by other airlines, in order to force passengers to buy the tickets for their whole journey from the same airline.

Another fairly frequent practice is not to book luggage through to its final destination as different airlines operate different sections of the journey.

Are there any regulations to avoid these abusive practices by airlines?

If not, does the Commission intend to introduce any kind of regulation to protect consumers from these abusive practices by airlines?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

A central aim of Community policy for air transport has been to create a single, competitive market, which has now been largely realised. This implies that airlines are free to compete and to decide which services to offer their customers, subject to legislation on safety, the environment, passengers’ rights and so on.

The Commission is working on the strengthening of passengers’ contractual rights and on the promotion of voluntary initiatives by airlines to improve their treatment of passengers. It will present a communication on the subject, to be ready in June 2000. In the meantime, it will launch a campaign to inform passengers of the rights that they already enjoy under Community law by arranging for the display of a charter of air passengers’ rights in airports and elsewhere. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/81

(2001/C 26 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0654/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: European aid for victims of crime

What action can the Commission take to ensure that victims of crime receive a better hearing and greater understanding, counselling and support and that their interests are taken into account both in the judicial process and as regards redress, compensation and human, social and psychological follow-up in all countries of the European Union?

A commitment of this kind by the Commission would help to ensure the protection of victims’ rights, a natural corollary of the free movement of persons, and would be a further step towards a people’s Europe.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

In its communication of 14 July 1999 on ‘Crime victims in the European Union Reflections on standards and action’ (1), the Commission argued that regarding both assistance to crime victims and victims’ access to and standing in their own process, a number of steps to improve the situation should be considered. On the basis of reactions to the communication and expert advice to be obtained in the course of a number of events to be organised at European level in the coming months, the Commission will decide what kind of action needs to be taken to bring forward this important matter. The Commission has noted with satisfaction that Portugal has already taken an initiative and proposed a framework decision on the standing of the victim in the criminal procedure.

As regards the compensation of victims of criminal offences, the Commission is both urging all the Member States to ratify the 1983 European Convention on the compensation of victims of violent crimes and examining the question in depth so as to improve the situation of victims.

(1) COM(1999) 349 final.

(2001/C 26 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0657/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: The real economy and the financial economy

The financial crises that have occurred in various parts of the world since 1997 can only be interpreted as signs of an underlying crisis in the international financial and monetary system as a whole, which is at risk of total collapse. The international institutions’ failure properly to discharge their duties (as was seen recently in Russia) and the concerns expressed by experts in world economics such as Ernst Welteke of the Bundesbank and the former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt give serious cause for concern about the risks of a financial crash that would hit not just the stock markets but the entire ‘speculative bubble’ economy created by inflated share prices. Since the dollar was uncoupled from the gold standard on 15 August 1971, a gulf has opened up between the real economy and the financial economy. The latter has given rise to a huge speculative bubble that has completely altered the shape of the world economy and now represents a sum of at least USD 300 000 billion, as compared with a global GDP of USD 40 000 billion.

This process has had a devastating effect on the economies and living standards of the developing countries (the events in Malaysia being a good example of this) and is having an adverse impact on production and employment levels even in the industrialised nations. Furthermore, operations aimed at refinancing the financial bubble and involving increases in liquidity levels could have an explosive inflationary effect on all prices, and not just share prices. C 26 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Given the above, would the Commission state whether:

1. it shares the widely-voiced concerns about the dangers of this situation;

2. it has ever considered the possibility of reintroducing: (a) a means of pegging currency values to a genuine reference standard, and (b) tighter exchange controls, which could mitigate the adverse impact of this process;

3. it would not agree that new credit lines should be opened, geared specifically towards fostering new investment in the various sectors of the real economy;

4. it has given any thought to the formulation of Europe-wide infrastructure projects which, making use of new technologies and new scientific research findings, could serve as a catalyst for industrial reconstruction and peaceful cooperation between nations and peoples;

5. it would be willing to propose that a new international conference, along the lines of that held in 1944 at Bretton Woods, be convened with a view to establishing a new international monetary system capable of gradually dismantling the mechanisms that have led to the creation of the speculative bubble, and of setting in motion programmes aimed at revitalising the real economy?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The world economy has greatly benefited from the liberalisation and development of capital flows which make it possible to make better use of resources, i.e. a more efficient use of surplus savings in order to finance productive investments. However, this development has lead to increased volatility of capital flows. Investors have shown increasing interest in risk investments as witnessed by the sometimes undoubtedly excessive prices of certain securities listed on international financial markets. The risk of financial crises and the domino effect they can have is, therefore, something to be taken very seriously.

The international monetary and financial infrastructure therefore needs to be adjusted to the new order created by internationalisation and the quantitative and technological development of the financial markets. Despite certain errors for which they were not always to blame, international financial institutions have on the whole functioned relatively well during periods of turbulence. Despite the financial crises of recent years, the world economy has grown steadily and today the countries which have gone through a crisis have in most cases already recovered the standard of living they had enjoyed before the crisis. Their economies are now founded on sounder bases. Reform efforts must be directed more at adapting to the new institutions and their operating rules rather than at establishing a completely new architecture.

Reforms so far have mainly involved improving the information supplied to the markets so that they can evaluate more accurately the risks involved in their investments and so to differentiate better between the performances of the various economies. The merits of certain systems to limit capital inflows, such as those applied in Chile, have also been recognised. But the exchange control systems for capital outflows are nearly always ineffective or even harmful. It should be noted that one of the causes of the Asian crisis was the over-rigid exchange rates of those countries’ currencies. Exchange rates should be able to adjust themselves as long as the there are considerable differences in the development and the performance of the economies of the countries concerned.

However, reforms are far from complete. In particular, the private sector should be made to understand that it must actively participate in resolving financial crises. This should be achieved by means of persuasion but also by putting in place regulations which are not at odds with the principles of the market economy. The system must also learn from the creation of the euro. The euro is a new focal point and will create a fresh balance in the international monetary and financial system, dominated hitherto by the US dollar. However, its potential can only be exploited fully if it is based on a modern European economy open to the new technologies and scientific progress. There is no point here in rehearsing all the initiatives the Commission has taken recently in these fields. But it is useful to stress that the euro should also enable Europe to play a role commensurate with its economic power in the international financial organisations. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/83

(2001/C 26 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0658/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Pollution of the Danube

The entry of highly toxic substances into the waters of the Danube via a tributary, causing damage to flora and fauna in all the countries through which the river flows and presenting an uncontrollable public health hazard, has highlighted yet again the problem of safety controls for sites and factories using dangerous substances.

Leaving aside the financial aid offered by the EU for the decontamination operations, can the Commission say whether:

1. it does not consider it expedient to monitor the industries at risk, some of them using obsolete technologies, operating in the countries which have applied for accession;

2. it does not consider it essential to promote periodic checks, with the agreement of the countries concerned, in order to prevent environmental disasters which are irreparable in the long term;

3. it does not consider that the accession negotiations should include the obligation to clean up potentially polluting industries by a certain date and to install proven safety systems for production processes using toxic substances;

4. it does not consider it appropriate to make any aid to tackle environmental disasters conditional upon measures to clean up polluting industries and the installation of safety systems?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

1. and 2. The accidental cyanide spill from a gold mine in Romania reinforces the need to give environmental issues high priority during the pre-accession phase. The Commission therefore supported the setting up of an international task force to assess this accident and its impact. It will assess what should be done to alleviate the negative impacts, to prevent other similar accidents from occurring at the Baia Mare gold mine, and to inform the public of all the above-mentioned issues. Equally, it will identify any potential similar ‘hot spots’ in the Danube river basin but also elsewhere in the candidate countries.

3. Environment has already a high priority in the accession negotiations. The general Community position for the accession conference explicitly underlines the need to ensure a high level of protection. The negotiating positions of the Community lay down a clear strategy to achieve this objective. This includes in particular giving priority to industry-related legislation and trans-boundary pollution. In addition to the position taken during the negotiations, the Community has called for all new investments in the candidate countries to comply with the environmental acquis already during the pre-accession period.

4. In granting financial assistance to avoid ecological disasters, the conditionality will have to be defined on a case by case basis and according to the financial instrument used. In this context, it is also important to recall that the polluter pays principle is one of the main cornerstones of the environmental policy of the Community that should be fully applied. C 26 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0659/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (9 March 2000)

Subject: Sinking of the trading vessel ‘Zafir’

Some days ago, the ‘Zafir’, a Portuguese-registered trading vessel, belonging to a Swiss-based shipping company, sank after being struck by the Italian vessel ‘Expresso Catania’ in south Italian waters, with the loss of thirteen lives. Most of those who died were Galician seamen.

Has the Commission taken any steps to clarify the causes of the sinking of the ‘Zafir’, recover the bodies of the men lost and provide support for the families of the crew, both as regards their immediate needs and any compensation to which they may be entitled?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (6 April 2000)

Like the honourable Member, the Commission learned through media coverage that the trading vessel ‘Zafir’ sank off the coast of Calabria, Italy. The Commission regrets the tragic consequences of the accident and the irretrievable loss of human lives and extends its sympathy to the victims’ families.

As regards the causes of the accident, we must await the results of the inquiry that the Italian authorities are carrying out. The Commission must emphasise that sea rescue and salvage do not come under its jurisdiction, which explains why the authorities involved in the aftermath of the accident did not seek its assistance.

For its part, the Commission places great emphasis on safety at sea in the context of transport policy. In this perspective, it believes that measures must be taken at Community level to improve safety. To this end, it has submitted a number of specific proposals on this topic to the Council, in particular regarding oil tankers (1).

Other specific proposals designed to improve safety at sea will be put forward by the end of the year.

(1) COM(2000) 142 final.

(2001/C 26 E/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0660/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (9 March 2000)

Subject: The Galician companies Bazan and Astano in the merger of Spanish State shipyards

The Spanish national authority responsible for industrial State holdings is considering the possible merger of the Galician shipyards belonging to the firms Bazan and Astano, to form a single civil and military shipbuilding company.

Does the Commission know about this and can it say whether the merger would mean that the Galician shipyards could therefore start building ships for the merchant navy once again?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 April 2000)

This Written Question deals with the same subject as the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-94/00 (1). The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to that question. As was explained in that reply, any merged company would be unable to resume merchant shipbuilding.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 176. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/85

(2001/C 26 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0664/00 by Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 February 2000)

Subject: Minorities in the CEECs

The Commission not only has a mandate from the Copenhagen European Council, but also an obligation under Article F of the 1992 EU Treaty, to ensure respect for the principle of the protection of minorities, including in future Member States. The superficial and cursory manner in which the problems of minorities are dealt with in the opinions concerning the applicant countries of July 1997 and the progress reports of December 1998 and October 1999 do not suggest that the Commission is giving the necessary attention to, or is adequately informed on, this subject. The texts in question are one-sided in their concentration on the citizenship problems of non-native Russian immigrants in the Baltic States and the social problems faced by Roma in central and eastern Europe and the Balkans. A thorough examination by the Commission of the following difficult issues, rather than its usual terse observations, would therefore be welcomed.

Under the Beneš decrees and the Jajce and AVNOJ decisions of 1945, the whole of the German and Hungarian ethnic groups in the then Czechoslovakia, who represented almost 30 % of the population of the country, as well as ethnic Germans and German-speaking Austrians in areas of the then Yugoslavia formerly belonging to Austria, were deprived of their rights, outlawed and expropriated without compensation. These unjust decrees remain in force in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia. On 8 March 1995 the Czech constitutional court in Brünn declared the Benes decrees legal and legitimate.

Indiscriminately making whole ethnic groups, including everyone from infants to old men, responsible for war crimes committed by others, as is the case with the above decrees, and collectively punishing them, even to the point of mass murder, is itself unanimously viewed as a war crime from the standpoint of civilised legal opinion. The European Court of Human Rights has stated its position unequivocally on this issue. The Commission alone is persistently silent on the issue of these unjust laws remaining in force in the three applicant countries for accession.

Would it not ultimately be in the interests of the applicant countries themselves if the Commission were to point out to them unequivocally and openly the need for these glaringly discriminatory rules to be abolished as soon as possible and for the victims to be compensated, as such unjust laws cannot in any case be maintained following accession to the EU?

Will this fundamental shortcoming in Czech, Slovak and Slovenian legislation be dealt with in the next progress reports?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (24 March 2000)

As future Member States, the candidate countries have undertaken to fulfil the criteria with respect to the rule of law and adherence to human rights principles. However, the Benes decrees and the Jajce/AVNOJ decisions were adopted and implemented before the founding of the Community and before the entry into force of the Treaty of Rome.

The candidates will have to adopt and implement all areas of Community legislation and policy. Article 295 (ex Article 222) EC Treaty states explicitly that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership. The Commission therefore has no competence for intervening in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia are contracting parties to the European convention for the protection of human rights (ECHR). The implementation of the ECHR is the responsibility of the Council of Europe. Questions concerning issues arising under this convention should be addressed to the Council of Europe.

In the light of the above, the regular reports focus on the progress made by the candidates in preparation for membership to the Union, in particular the rate at which they are adopting the Union ‘acquis’. In this context, the Commission will continue to follow the method adopted by Agenda 2000 in evaluating candidate countries’ ability to meet economic criteria and fulfil the obligations deriving from accession. C 26 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0670/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (9 March 2000)

Subject: Borage honey and the 1976 honey regulations

Honey produced from the borage plant (borage honey) naturally contains a higher level of sucrose than the 5 % limit stipulated by the 1976 honey regulations. However, the Local Authority on Trading Standards in the UK has advised Trading Standards (UK) to accept the sucrose level in borage honey, following detailed analytical work by the European Federation of Honey Importers, Packers and Distribu- tors (which liases closely with the European Commission).

Will the Commission accept that borage honey naturally contains a high level of sucrose and therefore ought to be exempt from the current regulations?

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

In 1996, the Commission presented a proposal to the Council to simplify the Directive relating to honey (1). In Annex II of this proposal were included certain new criteria concerning apparent sucrose content.

In February 2000 during its last meeting, the Food and agriculture organisation (FAO) codex committee on sugars agreed a draft revised standard for honey. The new text of that draft revised standard includes sucrose content for Borage (Borago officinalis) honey of not more than 15 g/100 g. It seems probable that the next meetings of experts in the Council on the proposal relating to honey will take into account the conclusions of the codex committee.

(1) OJ C 231, 9.8.1996.

(2001/C 26 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0689/00 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission (9 March 2000)

Subject: Possible amendment of Article 105(6) of the EC Treaty

Article 105(6) of the EC Treaty stipulates that the Council may confer upon the ECB specific tasks concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and other financial institutions ‘with the exception of insurance undertakings’.

However, the large European market in financial services being established calls for global prudential supervision, particularly following the countless mergers or acquisitions, not to mention the acquisition of cross holdings, among banks, insurance undertakings, investment funds and other professionals in the financial sector. Several EU Member States have already introduced single national prudential supervision for the financial sector as a whole, including insurance undertakings, or are in the process of doing so.

Would it not be wise to take the opportunity offered by the intergovernmental conference to propose that Article 105(6) be amended so as to provide the legal basis necessary to enable the Council to confer upon the ECB certain specific tasks, including those relating to prudential supervision of insurance undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (19 April 2000)

The EC Treaty expressly excludes insurance companies from the prudential supervision tasks which could be conferred on the European Central Bank (ECB) under the procedure provided for in Article 105(6) of the EC Treaty. There are many grounds for this. The insurance industry does not risk significant contagion which could lead to a systemic crisis. Insurance companies are not covered as last resort lenders by the 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/87

central banks. Insurance companies operate mainly on the long-term capital markets (bonds and shares) and accordingly are less sensitive to monetary policy decisions. Prudential regulation of insurance companies is based on specific techniques, very different from the rules applied to banking. These facts explain why no central bank in the Community should be responsible for the prudential supervision of insurance companies.

The emergence of financial conglomerates combining credit, investment and insurance firms obviously challenges the traditionally sectoral organisation of prudential supervision of the finance industry.

Community legislation, which has liberalised the exchange of prudential information between regulatory authorities, has encouraged closer cooperation between the three sectors. In a number of countries, ‘integrated’ authorities have been put in place to ensure prudential supervision of the three sectors, namely, the banks, investment services and insurance companies. It should be noted that these authorities are clearly distinct from the central banks, although the legal framework encourages the exchange of information with the monetary authority.

In its Communication ‘Implementing the framework for financial markets: action plan’ (1), the Commission undertook to propose a prudential framework to ensure effective supervision of financial conglomerates. For that purpose, a joint technical group consisting of experts from the three sectors was set up to draft proposals in the fields of capital adequacy; intra-group transactions and risk concentration; the evaluation of shareholders and directors, in particular at the time of merger-acquisition operations; the exchange of information between competent authorities; and the identification of a coordinator from among the supervision authorities and the definition of his tasks.

At the same time, the Commission is the originator of the conference of supervision authorities which groups the various European bodies with responsibility for the rules and prudential supervision of the three sectors (2). By encouraging concerted action on matters of common interest, the Commission hopes to take into account the multi-sectoral dimension of financial conglomerates and to maximise cooperation between the various prudential supervision techniques.

The Commission feels that it is unnecessary to introduce into the Treaty a legal basis conferring on the ECB certain specific tasks in the prudential supervision of insurance.

(1) COM(1999) 232 final. (2) Banking: Banking Advisory Committee, Banking Supervisory Committee, Contact Group.Securities: Forum of European Securities Commissions (FESCO).Insurance: European Insurance Committee, Conference of Insurance Supervisors.

(2001/C 26 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0691/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Application of the Leader programme in the Autonomous Region of the Azores

On 18 February 2000, at the invitation of Adeliaçor I had the opportunity of visiting a series of projects developed by this association with financial support from the Leader programme in the rural district of Capelo on the island of Faial in the Autonomous Region of the Azores, where many of the 293 projects already approved by this association have been developed.

The projects visited included a vast range of activities, for example the rebuilding of homes destroyed by the Capelinhos volcano for the development of rural tourism projects, improvements in small tourist centres, the restoration of buildings for the promotion of handicrafts, the construction of viewing points and the preparation of waymarked routes for walkers, recreational centres for children, tourist leaflets and videocassettes, the marketing of agricultural products, etc. C 26 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

It is no exaggeration to say that the Leader programme is changing the face of this rural district and making an exemplary contribution to improving its quality of life and economic development. In this context I had the opportunity of confirming that the Leader programme is exceptionally successful and it is hard to imagine a more suitable instrument for rural development.

However, I noted a degree of apprehension on the part of the leaders of Adeliaçor on two fundamental points, firstly the timetable for the application of the Leader+ programme there, and secondly the deadlines for payment.

Could the Commission indicate the foreseeable timetable for all the measures needed to ensure that the Leader+ programme is introduced there (approval of the programme, deadlines for the submission of applications by the Member States and the launching of tendering procedures on the spot)?

Does the Commission not consider it would be useful to carry out a detailed study of the channels and financial formalities for the structural funds involved from the moment the money leaves the Community’s coffers until it reaches the promoter of individual projects, as well as the actual deadlines, so as to make it clear why payments are systematically delayed?

In any event, can the Commission say what level of priority it considers should be given to the application of the Leader+ programme in the most remote areas of the outermost regions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

The expected timetable for implementing Leader+ is as follows: once the lawyer-linguists have examined the text of the guidelines, the Commission will formally adopt it and the Leader+ communication containing the final version will be published in the Official Journal; Member States will then have six months to submit their programmes to the Commission, which in turn will have a maximum of five months to approve them; once the programmes have been approved, Member States will have a maximum of two years to select beneficiaries.

Having noted a number of implementation problems with Leader II, particularly in relation to the complexity of certain financial channels, the Commission states in the draft Leader+ communication that it ‘favours the use of global grants’ where this aims for simplification, without prejudicing the principle of sound and rigorous management. In addition, programmes will be required to describe ‘the management arrangements and the procedures for the mobilisation and circulation of financial flows, including the Community funding, as far as the final beneficiary. The ex-ante evaluation must confirm that the implementing arrangements are appropriate’.

All rural areas in the Community will be eligible for Leader+, including the remotest rural areas of the outermost regions. Member States will be free to opt for specific zoning of Leader+ if necessary, depending on the strategy chosen.

(2001/C 26 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0693/00 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Effective depollution of the Thermaic Gulf environmental conditions for biological treatment

One of the biggest infrastructure projects for the protection of the environment in the Thessaloniki region, financed by the Cohesion Fund, threatens not to meet the environmental protection standards for which it was designed. The project ‘Extension and completion of a plant for the biological treatment of sewage in Thessaloniki Stage II’ is at risk of not being completed, being financially unsustainable and, above all, of creating a second source of pollution and eutrophication, thereby defeating the object of the exercise. The legitimate concerns that the project falls short of the environmental standards required to clean up the 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/89

Thermaic Gulf and the constant misgivings that many of the biological treatment plants under construction in Greece will operate efficiently raise significant question marks about the effective use of Community finance from the Cohesion Fund and about the Community’s environmental protection strategy.

1. Where will the underwater section of the pipe with two branches, each totalling 2 600 metres in length, be situated (distance and location) and is it true that the original plan is to be altered?

2. Is it true that the current plan for laying the underwater pipe will create another major source of pollution in the Thermaic Gulf owing to its proximity to the shore, and another source of eutrophication because of the hydrological conditions in the Thermaic Gulf?

3. Is it true that the project will not be effective in environmental protection terms without constructing another treatment plant for tertiary processing?

4. What happens to the industrial waste from the four industrial estates in Thessaloniki? Will it undergo appropriate treatment and, if not, what provision has been made to protect the environment in the Thermaic Gulf?

5. What problems have been identified in Greece in connection with projects concerning the biological treatment of sewage and what impact do they have on effective environmental protection?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

The purpose of Phase II of the project to extend and complete the biological treatment facilities for Thessaloniki, part-financed by the Commission and the Greek authorities, is to improve the quality of water in the Thermaic Gulf. To that end, the project has been allocated sufficient resources for its completion. The work also meets the environmental standards governing the Thermaic Gulf, whose water quality is being monitored in order to detect any possible problem or future need.

On the basis of information from the Greek authorities, the Commission can state the following:

1. The dual-branch underwater pipeline is being constructed in accordance with the initial plans. It will be installed 800 metres north-west of the Chalastra pumping station and will run from north-west to south-east. The two branches will run side by side for 972 metres before diverging by 30 o for 1 620 metres and 1 600 metres respectively. Diffusers will be placed at a depth of 23 metres over the last 400 metres of the pipeline.

2. Far from causing pollution, the project to collect and treat Thessaloniki’s urban waste water will improve the environment: based on oceanographic findings by the national maritime research centre and Thessaloniki university, the distance and depth of the underwater pipeline have been chosen so as to prevent pollutant effects.

3. The work has been carried out in accordance with the satisfactory environmental standards in force. The Phase II treatment plant currently under construction will enable all the conurbation’s waste water to undergo comprehensive secondary treatment with additional nitrogen treatment, particularly during the summer, although the discharge does not occur in an area which the Member State regards as sensitive. Provision has been made for adding phosphorus treatment facilities if necessary. The Commission is monitoring changes in the environment of the Thermaic Gulf and will ensure that the most appropriate treatment level is applied.

4. The preventive measures with regard to industrial waste from the four areas comprise: the requirement under current Greek legislation that industry must pretreat such waste before being connected to Thessaloniki’s biological treatment facilities; the fully-equipped laboratory for monitoring discharge quality, to be installed within those facilities; and the toxicity indicator monitoring system, to be installed at the junction between the pipeline and Thessaloniki’s industrial area. C 26 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

5. In accordance with Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment (1), on 11 February 2000 Greece supplied to the Commission official notification of its sensitive areas including Thessaloniki harbour at the end of the bay. The Commission considers that the whole of Thessaloniki bay probably show signs of eutrophication and the Greek authorities have therefore been asked to examine this point in more detail. The Commission is also verifying whether all Member States are identifying sensitive areas correctly in accordance with the Directive. A report of its findings will be published at the beginning of 2001.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2001/C 26 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0699/00 by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (17 March 2000)

Subject: Meetings between Commission officials and Patrick Peter

How many meetings have Patrick Peter (of GTR and ADISA) and his consultant, Maitre Christian Lamonin, had with Commission officials?

Which officials were present at these meetings and when did they take place?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 April 2000)

The Honourable Member’s question relates to a pending competition investigation. As regards parliamentary questions on pending cases, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the letter of the then member of the Commission in charge of competition policy dated 28 January 1999 to the then Chairman of Parliament’s committee on Economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy which explained that only limited, general and non-confidential information can be provided in relation to pending cases.

Consequently, the Commission can only confirm that it has had several meetings with the representatives of the company GTR after GTR had introduced, in November 1997, a complaint against the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) and a number of other companies, in particular FOA and ISC. The Commission has never held private meetings with Mr Peter or his consultant Mr Lamonin as individuals. For confidentiality reasons, the Commission is not in a position to disclose the number of meetings with the complainant in questions, namely the GTR company, or the identity of those who took part in those meetings.

(2001/C 26 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0703/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council (14 March 2000)

Subject: The European Union and the genocide in Chechnya

Since the fall of Grozny, the genocidal nature of the war waged by the Russian army has become even clearer. Should the military action be followed through to its final conclusion, it would lead to the extermination of the Chechen people and Russia’s taking over the depopulated territory of Chechnya.

Russia’s genocidal action in Chechnya is far worse than Serbia’s in Kosovo, but the European Council, a prisoner of unjustifiable and unacceptable ideological prejudices and political interests, has taken not one serious measure to help prevent the tortures and deaths inflicted on the Chechens, and the appalling destruction of their country. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/91

What steps will the Council take to condemn the genocide and restore civil society and liberty in Chechnya?

(2001/C 26 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0707/00 by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(14 March 2000)

Subject: Council’s position regarding media reports of extremely serious human rights violations, notably murder, torture, rape and looting, by Russian forces in Chechnya

Across a very wide section of the international media, there has recently been extensive reporting of numerous instances of murder, torture, rape and looting by Russian forces in Chechnya.

1. Can the Council confirm these reports, and what is its own assessment of these alleged occurrences?

2. What steps has the Council taken to reliably investigate the truth of these very serious allegations?

3. What action does the Council intend to take against Russia, should these reports prove to be accurate?

4. Does the Council intend to seek, or, possibly, support, international action to prosecute and convict those directly responsible, and those responsible at state level, for murder, torture, rape and looting alleged to have been committed by members of the Russian forces in Chechnya?

5. What are the criteria applied by the Council in determining its position on such international criminal proceedings, in particular on what scale does murder, torture, rape, looting and expulsion for which a state is answerable, which is tolerated by the state or which is caused in some other way by the actions of a state or by the failure of a state to act have to take place in order for the Council of the European Union to support such international action to prosecute and convict those responsible?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0703/00 and E-0707/00

(26 June 2000)

The Council has repeatedly condemned as totally unacceptable the Russian military action in Chechnya. As stated in repeated public declarations, the Council views all the human rights abuses in Chechnya with the gravest concern. Pressure has been maintained at all levels on the Russian authorities to stop human rights abuses against the Chechen population and the Council will continue to strive for progress in achieving a political settlement to the conflict. It is the belief of the Council that its sustained efforts have begun to yield demonstrable results.

The EU has taken every available opportunity to investigate the situation in Chechnya. In this it has been hampered by the difficulty of gaining access to the region. It has, however, organised a fact-finding visit to Chechnya by EU ambassadors to Moscow. The Council has also actively associated itself with other initiatives in the region. There are strong links and good cooperation with the OSCE, of which Austria is the Chair in office, and the Council of Europe, of which Ireland is the Chair in office.

The conclusions of the Helsinki European Council on 10 and 11 December 1999 condemned the Russian action in the most forthright terms. Since the Helsinki Declaration, it has been working with the European Commission on a revised TACIS programme, which would reduce the aid available to Russia to certain priority areas. This programme will centre on institution building, the promotion of democracy and the rule of law. More recently, the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council on 23/24 March 2000 continued to call on Russia to take immediate steps towards a peaceful solution to the conflict. On 27 March, following the election of President Putin, the High Representative of the Council called for peace in Chechnya to be the first priority of the new administration. On 6 and 7 April, the Troika is set to C 26 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

visit Moscow, where the EU Presidency will use the opportunity to express its views forcefully to the Russian side. And on 10 April the subject will be on the agenda of the Cooperation Council with Russia to be held in Luxembourg.

The Council has repeatedly demanded that all human rights violations be investigated in a credible and transparent way, and that those implicated in atrocities be brought to justice. The President of the Council expressed deep concern about the situation in Chechnya in his statement on 29 March to the Commission for Human Rights in Geneva.

In the Commission for Human Rights the Presidency, acting on behalf of the European Union, played an active part in the debate on human rights in Chechnya. It submitted a Resolution voicing deep concern at reports of gross, widespread and flagrant violations of human rights in Chechnya and calling for a national, broad-based and independent commission of inquiry to be set up. The Commission voted to adopt the Resolution. The Council is monitoring closely the work of Mr Kalamanov, the Russian Presidential Special Representative for Human Rights. It expects him to contribute to bringing about justice in Chechnya, and restoring some faith in the law. The Council strongly calls on the Russian authorities to make this possible.

(2001/C 26 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0708/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (17 March 2000)

Subject: Designation of the Danube water-meadows as a special conservation area under the flora and fauna habitats directive

According to press reports, the Bavarian Government will only decide whether to designate the Danube water-meadows between Straubing and Vilshofen as a special conservation area for flora and fauna habitats once the question is settled of whether and how the Danube is to be developed. According to Court of Justice case-law, however, decisions on whether and within what boundaries special conservation areas are to be set up must be taken exclusively on nature protection (and not economic) grounds.

1. Is the Commission aware of the Bavarian Government’s reprehensible attitude in this matter?

2. Does the Commission agree that the Danube water-meadows between Straubing and Vilshofen should be classified immediately as a protected area (under the EC directive on the conservation of birds) and designated as a special flora and fauna habitats conservation area?

3. Is the Commission aware that the decision on the Danube development is to be taken this year, when the current in-depth studies have been concluded?

4. Is the Commission aware that three of the four alternative Danube development plans that have so far been studied (Alternatives B, C and D) will destroy or seriously affect the ‘de facto protected area of the Danube meadows’?

5. Is the Commission aware that, according to two new studies, Alternative A, which is environmentally acceptable and reasonably priced, will achieve comparable navigable depths to those in the central Rhine and the Wachau (with an almost constant channel width of 70 metres)?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (17 April 2000)

1. and 2. Considerable delays have been experienced in the designation by Germany, including Bavaria, of special protected areas according to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and the proposal of sites of Community importance according to Council Directive 92/43/ EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The Commission has therefore launched infringement proceedings against Germany with regard to the correct application of both directives. In the first case an application to the Court of justice is currently under preparation, in the second the matter is already before the Court and a ruling is awaited. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/93

Furthermore the Commission is aware of the high value of the area concerned for nature conservation including the protection of wild birds as part of the important bird area (IBA) ‘Donautal: Regensburg Vilshofen’. This IBA has therefore been highlighted in the reasoned opinion sent by the Commission to the German authorities with regard to their failure to apply correctly Directive 79/409/EEC. The Commission is also aware of the outstanding Natura 2000 value under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC of the ‘Alluvial plains of the Danube between Geisling and Vilshofen’ site. The information that the site is of particular importance for the priority habitat type of the alluvial forests and some non-priority fish species of the Danube is backed up by scientific studies.

3. to 5. The Commission does not have the information to which the Honourable Member refers and is therefore not in a position to comment further on the issue. The Commission takes the view that, once the Court has rendered its judgement, Germany is obliged to take the necessary measures to comply with the ruling. This includes ensuring respect of the procedures with regard to projects, which may have a significant effect on the area concerned.

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

(2001/C 26 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0715/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Third-country resident ethnic entrepreneurs

What steps is the Commission preparing to make it easier for third-country resident ethnic entrepreneurs to operate across the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that, as part of the Employment-Integra initiative, the Member States have implemented various projects aimed at nationals of third countries or persons belonging to ethnic minorities, who are resident in the Community and account for a dispropor- tionately high number of the unemployed and those in insecure and low-skilled jobs. Very few of these projects were, however, aimed specifically at entrepreneurial activity. Similarly, under the Employment- Now initiative, a number of projects have focussed on business start-ups by women, including those belonging to ethnic minorities.

Furthermore, the purpose of the new Community EQUAL initiative (the guidelines for which were adopted on 14 April 2000 (1)) is to attack all forms of discrimination and inequality relating to the labour market. One of the major themes of the initiative is to open up business start-up procedures to all parties.

On a more general level regarding the activities of an entrepreneur, the distinction should be made between an enterprise acting as a legal person and an entrepreneur acting as a natural person.

When an entrepreneur who is a third country national has legally set up a company which has its registered office, central administration or principal place of business in a Member State, the company as such forms an integral part of the Member State under the terms of Article 48 (ex Article 58) of the EC Treaty, and benefits from the right of establishment (Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty) and the freedom to provide services (Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty) within the internal market. However, the residence requirements for a third country national who is a manager or partner in such a company are not covered by Community law and are still governed by national legislation. On the basis of the new Title IV of the EC Treaty, it will be possible to adopt Community rules on the conditions of entry and residence for nationals of third countries for the purposes of paid employment or working in a self- employed capacity (Article 63(3)(a)), and on the rights under which nationals of third countries who are C 26 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

legally resident in a Member State may reside in other Member States (Article 63(4)). In the ‘Scoreboard’ (2) presented by the Commission and endorsed by the Council on 27 March 2000, it is stated that studies are under way on the admission of third country nationals with a view to the Commission presenting proposals for Directives.

On the other hand, an entrepreneur who is a third country national acting as a natural person already legally resident in the territory of a Member State does not benefit from the right of establishment under the terms of Article 43 of the EC Treaty. However, paragraph 2 of Article 49 of the EC Treaty enables the Council to extend the freedom to provide services to service providers who are third country nationals legally established in a Member State. In February 1999, the Commission therefore presented a proposal for a Council Directive extending the freedom to provide cross-border services to third country nationals established within the Community (3). As part of the scheduled consultation procedure, the Parliament welcomed this proposal (see the Berger report (4)) subject to certain amendments, particularly concerning the issue of ‘bogus self-employed persons’. Following the Parliament’s opinion of 3 February 2000, the Commission will present an amended proposal as soon as possible.

On a more general note, the Commission has presented a package of measures based on Article 13, including the proposal for a Council Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (5), which was the subject of the Buitenweg report adopted by Parliament on 18 May 2000.

(1) COM(2000) 853. (2) Scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of ‘Freedom, security and justice’ in the European Union COM(2000) 167 final of 24 March 2000. (3) OJ C 67, 10.3.1999. (4) Berger report of 2 February 2000 (A5-0012/00). (5) COM(1999) 566.

(2001/C 26 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0718/00 by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: 300 million cut in appropriations under heading 1

Further to the statements that Mrs Schreyer, Commissioner in charge of budgets, made on 22 February 2000 to the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets and the answers she gave to the questions put by members of that committee regarding the annual reduction of EUR 300 m that the Commission intends to make in appropriations entered in respect of heading 1, to the effect that under no circumstances would heading 1B be involved, can the Commission say exactly which budget line within heading 1A it intends to make that cut from?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

In its orientation debate in February 2000, the Commission decided on the priorities for the 2001 budget and proposed that an amount of 300 M€ per year for the reconstruction of Kosovo and its extension to the Western Balkan should be transferred from heading 1 to heading 4 for 2001 and 2002.

In 2001, expected needs for agricultural expenditures in heading 1(a) have been adjusted as compared to the very first estimates in late December 1999. This was in particular possible in the light of more favourite evolution of the American dollar exchange rate and recovery in world cereal markets. Proposals to amend the existing legislative framework are therefore not required and support to farmers will remain unchanged. Consequently, no budget line has to be cut in order to permit the transfer of € 300 million to heading 4. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/95

(2001/C 26 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0720/00 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Distribution in the food industry

In certain sectors of the economy distribution has traditionally played, or has come to play in recent years, a crucial role in delivering products from the initial stage of production into the hands of consumers.

Although this is the case in other sectors of the economy as well, it is especially true of the food industry.

An excessive concentration of distribution can have negative consequences not only for consumers but also for manufacturers, to the point that for no objective reason, distributors may refuse to handle the initial or later stages of distribution for certain products.

What measures are being implemented to ensure that a balance is maintained between the concentration of the food industry and that of the distribution sector?

Does the Commission intend to adopt, or has it already adopted, special measures for those sectors that are most affected by any decisions taken by the distribution industry?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

When examining recent cases (1) of concentration in the large-scale distribution business in Austria, the United Kingdom and France, the Commission identified the risk which the Honourable Member outlines in his written question.

Supplies to retail distributors with a strongly food-oriented business depend substantially on their position on the distribution market. The greater their volume of purchases, the more favourable terms set by suppliers of a distribution firm will tend to be. Thus, the distribution firm can operate targeted price- cutting strategies vis-à-vis its competitors. An improvement in the position on the market leads in turn to a fresh improvement in buying terms and so on.

This spiral could engender an increasingly high degree of concentration on both the distribution market and the supply market. Final consumers can admittedly benefit from this process, as there could be a stage of intensive competition on the distribution market during which the distribution firm, given its strong purchasing power, can pass on the advantages it has gained in its selling prices. But, this situation will only last until such time as only one or more firms dominate the market. At that juncture, the final consumer will have only a very limited choice.

So far, whenever the Commission has been able to prove that a merger between distribution firms created a dominant position, the firms have given the Commission undertakings that they will remedy the situation. On the basis of notifications and complaints made to it, and to the extent that trade between Member States is affected, the Commission will continue to evaluate the risk and, where necessary, penalise abuses or prohibit dominant positions.

(1) Cases M1221 REWE/Meinl, M1612 Wall Mart/ASDA and M1684 Carrefour/Promodes. C 26 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0721/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Heavy pollution of the River Segura (Spain)

In 1998, the Spanish River Segura was tested at 13 points between Murcia and the sea, and found to contain extremely toxic metals and products. The tests were carried out by the Agricultural Chemical Pedology Department of the University of Orihuela (Alicante), and the findings have now been backed up by a recent report by Julia Martínez Fernández, an environmental biologist at the University of Murcia. Her report, which has been made public by the Orihuela ‘Pro Río’ Committee, claims that the waters of the Segura are not even suitable for agricultural use. The levels of cadmium are frighteningly higher than the Community and Spanish legal limits (176 mg as against the legal 5 mg).

Although the Commission requested at the time that the waters of the Segura be analysed to see whether there was a case for taking Spain to the European Court, the resolution of this extremely serious environmental problem is proving extremely protracted, particularly given that the deadline for starting work on the urban waste water collection and treatment systems was 31 December 1999.

Given the urgent need to find solutions for a river which is getting more toxic with every day that passes, I advised the Commission of the situation as long ago as September 1997 (Question E-2683/97) (1), again in June 1998 (E-1906/98) (2), while my question of March last year has yet to receive an answer.

Will the Commission inform me what stage it has reached with its investigation of the major environmental problem represented by the pollution of the River Segura?

Has the Commission taken Spain to the European Court over this matter?

Does the Commission believe that the number of purification plants which the Spanish authorities intend to install in the towns concerned will be enough to ensure that the river will be perfectly clean? Does the Commission intend to demand that the Spanish authorities also ensure the purification of the industrial waste which factories discharge straight into the river?

(1) OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 44. (2) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 115.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

With regard to the pollution of water by dangerous substances in general, the Commission is aware of the problems relating to the implementation in Spain of Council Directive 76/464/EEC (1) of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community. It should be noted that the Commission inititated infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty and the Court of Justice ruled against Spain for having failed to implement programmes to reduce the pollution of water by certain dangerous substances in list II in the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC, contrary to the provisions of Article 7 thereo. (2).

The Commission has also initiated infringement proceedings against Spain for failure to comply with the provisions of Directive 76/464/EEC, in response to other pollution problems reported in complaints and Parliamentary questions. The pollution of the river Segura is covered by these proceedings and the Commission has sent Spain a reasoned opinion. The Commission would like to see the studies on the current state of the river Segura to which the Honourable Member refers. Once the additional information has been evaluated it may be used as supporting evidence.

The Commission is currently examining the river basin plans notified by the Spanish authorities after the Court delivered the judgment referred to above. They maintain that these plans include pollution reduction programmes for the inland waters concerned. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/97

As regards Council Directive 91/271/EEC (3) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, agglomerations with a population equivalent (p. e.) of more than 15 000 (the population equivalent is a unit of measurement corresponding to the average amount of organic pollution produced per person each day) which discharge their urban waste-water into the river Segura must be provided with collecting systems and biological treatment systems by 31 December 2000 at the latest. For agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 2 000 and 15 000 the deadline is 31 December 2005. At the beginning of next year the Commission will check whether this requirement has been met in respect of the largest agglomerations.

Concerning industrial waste water, there is a clear obligation under Council Directive 76/464/EEC for the authorisation of discharges containing list I and list II substances.

Consequently there is a requirement for purification of industrial waste water if emission limit values in the discharge of water quality objectives are exceeded.

The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures, using the instruments available, to ensure that Community law is complied with in the case in question.

(1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976. (2) Judgment of 25.11.1998. Case C-214/96. (3) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2001/C 26 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0726/00 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Homeopathic medicines in stock farming

Under a new Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 1804/1999 (1) of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (2) on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production), organically reared animals are, primarily, to be treated with homeopathic and herbal medicines, provided they are effective.

It is very constructive that homeopathic and herbal medicines are now accepted and are to be used but, in Sweden, veterinary surgeons have protested against the rule as they are not permitted to use homeopathic medicines as long as there is no scientific evidence that such preparations are effective. In contrast, anyone who is not a veterinary surgeon is allowed to treat sick animals with homeopathic medicine.

The consequence of this situation is that it is left to farmers first to make a diagnosis and then to try a homeopathic treatment. There is a great risk in this process that a correct diagnosis and professional treatment will come too late. There is also a greater risk of spreading disease.

What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that animals in all countries receive professional and appropriate treatment and that veterinary surgeons are also allowed to use homeopathic and herbal medicines?

(1) OJ L 222, 24.8.1999, p. 1. (2) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

Under Council Regulation (CE) no 1804/1999 (1), sick or injured animals reared in organic farming should be treated with veterinary medicinal products of plant origin or homeopathic products, provided their therapeutic effect is effective and adapted to the sickness and to the animal species. If this is not the case, the use of chemically synthesised allopathic medicinal products is allowed under the responsibility of a vet. C 26 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Every medicinal product of whatever origin must comply with specific rules before it can be marketed and used, whether in organic farming or in conventional animal husbandry. According to the principles laid down in Article 4 of Directive 81/851/EEC, (2) no veterinary medicinal product may be marketed in a Member State and no veterinary medicinal product may be administered to animals unless authorization has previously been issued.

Directive 92/74/EEC (3) provides for a special simplified registration procedure for homeopathic veterinary medicinal products. Under this simplified registration scheme, demonstration of efficacy of the product is not required. Article 7 of this Directive, however, explicitly excludes from this simplified procedure products which are intended for food producing animals.

The term ‘phytotherapeutic’ medicinal product is not known in Community pharmaceutical legislation and medicinal products containing active herbal ingredients need to be authorised like any other veterinary medicinal product. Therefore, according to Community pharmaceutical legislation both phytotherapeutic and homeopathic veterinary medicinal products for food producing animals must be authorized in accordance with the provisions of Directive 81/851/EEC, including the provisions concerning proof of therapeutic effect.

These rules are intended to assure the quality, safety and efficacy of veterinary medicinal products. They apply to anyone who places on the market and administers veterinary medicinal products to animals in the Community. Neither vets nor farmers are according to Community law allowed to use homeopathic or ‘phytotherapeutic’ veterinary medicinal products unless they have been authorized in accordance with the provisions of Directive 81/851/EEC, including the provisions on the proof of therapeutic effect.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production. (2) Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of theMember States relating to veterinary medicinal products, OJ L 317, 6.11.1981. (3) Council Directive 92/74/EEC of 22 September 1992 widening the scope of Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to veterinary medicinal products and laying down additional provisions on homeopathic veterinary medicinal products, OJ L 297, 13.10.1992.

(2001/C 26 E/118) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0727/00 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Infringement of Directives 85/337/EC and 97/11/EC

Since 1994 there have been plans in the county of Blekinge (Sweden) to construct a road through the Rolandshav, a wetland area deserving protection whose natural value would be wholly or partially destroyed by the building of such a road.

In December a complaint was brought before the Commission against the Blekinge county council for lack of transparency, objective review and quality control in the application of Directive 85/337/EC (1) (as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2)). The complaint was also directed against the Ministry of Industry and Commerce for its uncritical acceptance of a work plan for the construction of the road.

The complainant considers that the environmental impact assessments on which the decision was based were faulty in a number of respects, and that the decision as taken cannot be considered correct. The complainant further maintains that the environmental impact assessment did not meet the requirement for relevant data, nor did it identify, describe or assess the direct or indirect impact of the road construction on the eco-system within the area of countryside affected. (In the material which has been made public there are in fact downright inaccuracies. The information material stated that the University of Lund was responsible for the assessment of natural values in the environmental impact assessment, whereas the University of Lund was not even involved in the assessment). 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/99

What progress has the Commission made in dealing with this case, and what measures can it take?

What penalties can the Commission impose if Sweden continues to apply Directives 85/337/EC and 97/ 11/EC on environmental impact assessments in an incorrect manner?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

In response to this complaint, the Commission is conducting an investigation in order to assess whether the relevant Community environmental legislation has been complied with. The investigation concerns the allegations made by the complainant relating to the content of the environmental impact assessment carried out and the information which has been provided to the public. As further information is required, the Commission has requested the observations of the Swedish authorities on this matter.

The Commission has no competence to issue any sanctions against Member States for infringements 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 as amended by Directive 97/11/EC. Without prejudging its assessment of the case in question, the Commission may open infringement proceedings against a Member State for violation of Community law (1). If a Member State does not take the necessary measures to comply with a judgment of the Court of justice in such a case, the Commission shall after giving that Member State the opportunity to submit its observations, issue a reasoned opinion specifying the points on which the Member State concerned has not complied with the judgment. If the Member State fails to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment within the time-limit laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the case before the Court again. In so doing, it shall specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned. If the Court finds that the Member State has not complied with its judgment it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment (2).

(1) Article 226 EC Treaty (ex-Article 169). (2) Article 228 EC Treaty (ex-Article 171).

(2001/C 26 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0730/00 by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Subject: Provisions in support of poultry breeders affected by avian influenza

In December 1999 poultry farms in a number of regions of Italy, including Lombardy, Friuli, Sardinia, Emilia Romagna and, in particular, the Veneto, were hit by the spread of ‘avian influenza’.

In compliance with Italian and Community legislation there was an immediate response to the European Reference Centre’s announcement that the virus was particularly virulent and measures were adopted to contain and eradicate the epidemic. This resulted in the destruction of all birds on the infected farms and the demarcation of protection and surveillance areas.

It is estimated that avian influenza has led to the deaths of more than 5 million chickens and laying hens, which is having enormous repercussions, both social and economic. The damage has affected not only the infected farms, which have lost income for every bird killed, but has involved the whole poultry sector, with negative repercussions on exports to international markets. C 26 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

During the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers held on 24 January last, the Italian Minister for Agriculture and Forestry explained to the other ministers the problems the disease is causing the farms involved. The meeting also offered an opportunity to consider a number of measures aimed at compensating producers for the indirect damage caused by the epidemic.

The Italian Minister Mr De Castro therefore asked Commissioner Fischler to launch the procedure for drawing up support measures for the Italian market in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 (1).

Can the Commission therefore say what stage has been reached in the procedure, what measures will be adopted to compensate the producers so adversely affected and by what deadline they will be implemented, in view of the urgent need to respond to the poultry sector’s problems?

(1) OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2000)

The Commission is following with concern the evolution of avian influenza in Italy. From mid December 1999 until 3 March 2000, more than 15 million birds were lost due to this epidemic and in the most affected areas in Northern Italy a policy of complete stamping out is now being followed.

Regarding exceptional market support measures in addition to measures taken in conformity with Community veterinary legislation, the Commission undertook to make an economic assessment on the basis of detailed information to be supplied by the Italian ministry of Agriculture.

This assessment is necessary since Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) no 2771/75 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat provides that exceptional measures ‘may be taken only to the extent that and for such period as is strictly necessary for the support of that market’.

By 9 March 2000 the detailed information requested had not been made available. The evaluation procedure which has to take account of the above mentioned stamping out policy could therefore not have been started by that date.

(2001/C 26 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0737/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Removal of postal subsidies for Christian publications in Southern India

In the first two weeks of January this year, over 100 Christian publications in Southern India had their postal subsidies removed on the grounds that the information which they are disseminating does not cover political or current affairs and therefore does not constitute news. As a result of this action, many of these publications, some of which have existed for thirty years with no previous problems of this kind, are at risk of closing down permanently.

In the light of the ongoing climate of hostility towards the Christian community in India and the spate of recent legislative initiatives to clamp down on their practice and witness, there are reasonable grounds to believe that this latest step may be a deliberate attempt to curtail their freedom of expression.

Will the Commission seek to establish whether this move constitutes discrimination on religious grounds and, if so, raise this matter with the Indian Government? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/101

Answer given b y Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member and would like to emphasise that the Commission delegation in New Delhi continues to monitor and report on the situation of religious minorities in India, including the Christian community. It does so in close consultation with the Union missions in New Delhi.

Ever since the surge in 1998 of the number of attacks on Christian families and facilities, Union ambassadors have consistently expressed their concern in this regard to the Indian government, primarily by means of quiet diplomacy.

The government of India has since set up a National Commission for Minorities. This Commission is charged in particular with the protection of religious minorities in India, and following up complaints received. Although the National Commission for Minorities has no judicial powers, it is felt that it will continue to exert a restraining influence on extremist groups and thus contribute to upholding the principle of secular government and free religious practice enshrined in the Indian constitution.

As for the reported removal of postal subsidies affecting some 100 Christian publications in Southern India, the Commission will request its delegation in New Delhi, in close coordination with the Union missions, to explore the factual background and implications of any discriminatory measures taken that may affect the free dissemination of information by Christian and other religious groups in India. Based on their findings the Commission will consult its partners and decide on the extent and form of any representation to be made to the Indian authorities.

(2001/C 26 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0743/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: EIA and the definition of ‘wind farms’

Council Directive 97/11/EC (1) amending Directive 85/337/EEC (2) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment also lists the term ‘wind farms’ among the projects subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (section 3(i) of Annex II). No definition of the term is provided. It is also unclear whether the defining factor is the number of installations, the total area covered by installations or the output of installations.

On the grounds of landscape protection and regional planning it was recommended in Germany’s federal states that individual installations be grouped as far as possible into wind parks. Setting the number of installations at too low a figure means that parks with only ten wind power installations are now in danger of being subjected to EIA. EIA should apply to projects involving the likelihood of a substantial impact on the environment. Using wind energy is an important component of an energy policy geared to protecting the climate and all the German states have adopted special rules ensuring that nature conservancy and environmental issues are taken into account when identifying wind power sites. These rules have proved their worth. Further action requiring an EIA to be carried out where only ten installations are involved needs to be looked at and modified in the light of operating experience to date.

Is the Commission not also of the opinion that major importance must be attached to the utilisation of wind power in tackling the problem of climatic protection and complying with the measures agreed internationally at Rio and Kyoto to safeguard the climate?

What does it mean by the term ‘wind farms’ as regards the number of installations and the land area involved (detailed figures please)?

How have individual Member States interpreted the term ‘wind farms’ in the EIA directive?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. C 26 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

The Commission supports strongly the development and use of renewable energy sources, such as the use of wind power and envisages a percentage of 12 % of final energy consumption by 2010. This will help achieve the Kyoto target of minus 8 % and deal with other environmental problems such as acidification or ozone. Obviously, wind-energy plays an important role in such strategies and was one of the fastest growing industries in the Community in 1999. Using alternative methods for energy production does not exclude, however, that such activities might have significant environmental impact in certain situations which should be identified, assessed and taken into account in decision-making. The design and building of wind-farms should take account of other environmental problems which might be encountered so one environmental problem is not replaced by another. Such evaluation does not hamper or delay the use of wind-energy but ensures an environmentally sound approach.

Directive 97/11/EC amending the first environmental impact assessment (EIA) Directive does not give details concerning the notion ‘wind farms’. It is to be noted that the logic for all activities listed in annex II of Directive 97/11/EC is that it is up to the Member States to determine the details (thresholds and criteria) above which a significant environmental impact is likely to occur. Such determination might differ from one Member State to another depending on specific characteristics. In some cases a wind-farm may consist of at least two wind turbines only which might cause significant environmental impact (e.g. when being placed close to a bird protected area) whereas in others several wind turbines might form a wind-farm.

As regards details of how the different Member States have transposed the notion ‘wind-farm’ in their national legislation, it is to be noted that eight Member States, including Germany, still have not fully transposed Directive 97/11/EC. The Commission therefore does not have all information necessary to answer the question. According to available information ‘wind-farm’ is defined differently using a combination of thresholds and criteria (e.g. The Netherlands: ‘where the overall capacity of wind-mills is of 10 MW or more/year or 10 or more wind-mills’, United Kingdom: ‘the installation of more than 2 turbines or where the hub height of any turbine or height of any other structure exceeds 15 metres’; Italy: at national level legislation all industrial plants producing power exploiting the wind are subject to screening but if they fall in a nature conservation area they are automatically subject to environmental impact assessment).

(2001/C 26 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0747/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Jobs reliant on EU membership

The British government has stated that 3 445 000 jobs depend solely on exports to the EU. Is this comparable with Commission estimates?

Has the Commission made any assessment of how many UK jobs would be at risk if Britain failed to integrate further into the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Commission has not made an estimate of how many jobs in Britain depend solely on exports to the Community. It would not therefore dissent from the estimate of the British government. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/103

The Commission has not made any assessment of how many British jobs would be at risk if Britain failed to integrate further into the Union.

(2001/C 26 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0749/00 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Dutch legislation on termination of pregnancy

Is the Commission aware of the proposed changes in Dutch legislation allowing abortion in pregnancies over 24 weeks on the grounds that the babies have a disability and does the Commission consider that such a law would be contrary to Article 6 of the Treaties?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

The Commission has not been informed and is not aware of any proposals for changes to Dutch law with regard to abortions to be allowed after the 24th week of pregnancy. In any event, the Commission generally does not think it appropriate to deal with hypothetical questions, such as those that might be raised by draft laws that may or may not be enacted.

(2001/C 26 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0751/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 March 2000)

Subject: Rome Convention

What meetings have taken place on the proposed legislation on non-contractual obligations (Projet de communication sur la loi applicable aux obligations non-contractuelles (Rome II)) to replace the Rome Convention in the last six months? Where did these meetings take place? Have ministers of Member States discussed this proposal in the last six months? If so, on what occasions and what were their conclusions? If ministers were not involved, what level of civil servants attended the meetings? Which officials attended the meetings?

Which Council officials and/or department have overall charge of negotiations on Rome II? Is the inter- service consultation document (DG JAI D (99) 495 Communication de la Commission sur la loi applicable aux obligations non-contractuelles), which is in circulation at the present time, available in English? If the answer to this question is yes, from whom may a copy be obtained? If the answer is no, why is no copy available in English? What is the content of the inter-service consultation document? When is the outcome of the inter-service consultation expected?

Are any outside bodies being consulted on this proposal? If so, which groups are being consulted and how are these groups selected?

When is publication of a formal legislative proposal expected in this area? When is the legislative process expected to be completed? C 26 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(26 June 2000)

One of the priorities laid down in the Action Plan drawn up in Vienna in December 1998 to establish an area of freedom, security and justice concerned the feasibility and advisability of introducing an instrument on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II).

Discussions on this question were entered into within the Council at working party level under the provisions of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty). Within the General Secretariat of the Council, Directorate-General H (Justice and Home Affairs) is the department responsible for dealing with this dossier.

The Council suspended these activities pending the submission of a Member State initiative or a Commission proposal pursuant to Article 67(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

Although the Council is aware that the Commission is preparing a communication in this area, it has no information concerning either the scope or the content of the measures envisaged. It is therefore unable to answer the Honourable Member’s questions concerning the Commission communication and requests her to approach the Commission directly.

(2001/C 26 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0754/00 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Harp seals

What plans does the Commission have to raise with the Russian authorities and Mr Putin the issue of the mutilation of baby harp seals on the White Sea, due to start at the end of February/first week in March?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2000)

The Union is intensifying its dialogue with the Russian authorities on environmental issues under the partnership and cooperation agreement using a specific sub-committee of the cooperation committee established for this purpose. The next meeting is planned for the week 15-19 May 2000. Issues of endangered species and bio-diversity are discussed in this context.

(2001/C 26 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0756/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Supply of tuna loins to the Community market

At the Fisheries Council meeting of 30 March 1999, the Commission undertook to launch a study to assess supplies of tuna loins to the Community market. A study of the demand for, and supply of tuna loins, with an assessment of supplies of tuna loins to the Community market in the short and medium term, was submitted on 29 November 1999.

Can the Commission say what conclusions have been drawn from this study? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/105

(2001/C 26 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0757/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission (13 March 2000)

Subject: Supply of tuna loins to the Community market

What stance will the Commission be adopting on the basis of the recommendations which have emerged from this study?

(2001/C 26 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0758/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission (13 March 2000)

Subject: Supply of tuna loins to the Community market

Does the Commission believe that the completed study reflects its undertaking of 30 March 1999 to launch a study to assess supplies of tuna loins to the Community market?

(2001/C 26 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0759/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission (13 March 2000)

Subject: Supply of tuna steak to the Community market

At the Fisheries Council meeting held on 30 March 1999, the Commission undertook to launch a study with a view to establishing the state of affairs concerning the supply of tuna steak to the Community market. This study was submitted on 29 November 1999, and presented as a study of demand and supply of tuna steak (evaluation of the short- and medium-term supply of tuna steak to the Community market).

Can the Commission state why this study states in its recommendations (p. 8 of the general document) and in paragraph 7 (analysis and conclusions, p. 93) that the central subject of this study is how to supply the Italian industry so as to allow it to remain competitive while not adversely affecting other European producers such as Spain, when its central subject was in fact supposed to be the evaluation of the short- and medium-term supply of tuna steak to the Community market, not to Italy?

(2001/C 26 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0760/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission (13 March 2000)

Subject: Supply of tuna steak to the Community market

At the Fisheries Council meeting held on 30 March 1999, the Commission undertook to launch a study with a view to establishing the state of affairs concerning the supply of tuna steak to the Community market. This study was submitted on 29 November 1999, and presented as a study of demand and supply C 26 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

of tuna steak (evaluation of the short- and medium-term supply of tuna steak to the Community market).

Does the Commission consider that this study permits a clear evaluation of the economic and social cost to the Community of opening a tuna steak quota at a reduced rate of duty for third countries?

(2001/C 26 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0761/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Supply of tuna steak to the Community market

Can the Commission state why this study in general shows more interest in the tuna processing industry of a single Member State (Italy) than in the processing industry of the Community as a whole?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0756/00, E-0757/00, E-0758/00, E-0759/00, E-0760/00 and E-0761/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Commission considers the study in question to constitute a very detailed short and medium-term assessment for supply of tuna loins to the Community market. It discharges the Commission’s commitment of 30 March 1999.

On the purpose of the study, the first paragraph of its management summary speaks of ‘examining the supply situation for tuna loins to gain a full picture of the supply chain and its main operators’. Thus the scope of the study is clear at the beginning of the document.

The passage to which the Honourable Member refers in his question E-759/00 comes from the last paragraph of the management summary and sums up the present difficulties affecting supply of the Community market. The lack of competitiveness found by the study appears particularly marked in the Italian canning industry owing to its cost structure.

The other matters raised by the Honourable Member in question E-760/00 (economic and social costs), although strictly speaking non-commercial considerations, were also taken into account in the study. In its conclusions this points out that economic and social costs affect or are liable to affect Community enterprises, whether through the difficulties that some are encountering from intra-EU or international competition or because in the long term full opening of the Community market in tuna loins may well affect exporting countries at present enjoying a preferential arrangement.

The Honourable Member also says that the study focuses on the Italian canning industry rather than on the Community industry as a whole. The Commission finds the study well balanced in both its analysis and conclusions. The analysis covers the main producing and consuming Member States (and non-EU countries) and the recommendations cover all players in the market. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/107

In short, the Commission finds that the study has clarified the current structure and functioning of the Community market in tuna loins (principal enterprises, supply channels) and its short and medium-term evolution.

Increasing demand for loins has been met in part by steadily increasing imports into the Community. The Commission infers that the strong trend in the Community fishery products market of ever-increasing dependence on raw fish imports also holds good for tuna.

The study also confirms that Community enterprises’ use of tuna loins as raw material for the canning industry is helping to improve their competitiveness both inside and outside the Union. It also claims, and the Commission agrees, that this improvement in competitiveness is all the more necessary in that certain parts of the Community canning industry will have to make structural adjustments if they are to be viable in the long term.

Lastly, the Commission notes the existence of a limited but real seasonal supply deficit in the Community market.

For 2000, as it has done for past years, it proposed a limited quota for tuna loins. The Council has in turn opened these quotas.

Turning to the medium term, on 17 December 1999 the Council and Commission signed an agreement whereby an annual 4 000 tonne quota at 6 % duty will be opened for 2001-2003. This will allow Community canners to make good the abovementioned shortfall and for those enterprises faced with the need for structural change will facilitate the achievement of greater competitiveness on the Community and international markets.

(2001/C 26 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0762/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Humanitarian aid to the people of Eritrea

The conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, which began in May 1998, has had a high death toll on both sides and has led to the deportation of tens of thousands of civilians. The European Union should cooperate with the United Nations to take more effective action in the region, on the one hand to persuade Ethiopia to fully accept the framework peace agreement drawn up by the OAU, and on the other to send more humanitarian aid to the peoples that are the victims of this conflict. The European Union has guaranteed only 40 % of the humanitarian aid requested by the Eritrean authorities and this aid is reaching its destination with considerable delay.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does the Commission therefore not consider that the humanitarian aid to the victims of the conflict should be increased?

2. What action has it taken, or does it intend to take, to expedite the delivery of the aid in question?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Since the outbreak of hostilities and military confrontation between Ethiopia and Eritrea the Commission, in particular through its Humanitarian Office (ECHO), has been very actively involved in providing assistance to the war-affected populations of Eritrea. The Commission is supporting a wide range of humanitarian activities in the fields of water and sanitation, supplementary feeding, shelter, distribution of food and non-food items. This assistance is in particular crucial for some 200 000 displaced people and deportees gathering in camps. C 26 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

In 1999 the Commission, made available humanitarian assistance worth € 9.8 million in favour of the vulnerable populations affected by the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Of that amount € 3.5 million were destined for Ethiopia and € 6.3 million for Eritrea. The Community is thus among the major donors providing humanitarian assistance to the displaced and deported populations in Eritrea. The Commission is conscious of the need for an even handed approach to both countries. Nevertheless the humanitarian needs and circumstances in Eritrea call for a more comprehensive support.

The Commission will continue to closely monitor the humanitarian situation in Eritrea. Should the situation deteriorate the need for an adaptation of the Commission’s assistance programme will be examined.

(2001/C 26 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0767/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Projects in support of democracy and minority rights in Turkey

Can the Commission supply an exact list of projects to support and protect Turkish minorities and/or relating to the Kurdish question which it has supported in the EU in the past three years under the MEDA democracy programme?

To my astonishment, the word ‘minority’ did not appear in the description of a single project under the MEDA programme 1996-1999, although I was under the impression that at least one conference on the Kurdish question had received financial support.

As from 2000, does the Commission expect to be able to sponsor projects which explicitly protect and support cultural, social and economic rights of minorities, either in Turkey itself or possibly elsewhere? Will the Commission exert the requisite diplomatic pressure to enable these projects to proceed without interference?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

Under the 1996-1999 Meda democracy programme (budget line B-7050) and concerning Turkey, the Commission financed the two projects that have now been completed. A project to strengthen civil society, human rights and democracy in Turkey (€ 120 000) presented by the Foundation for the research of societal problems (TOSAV) aimed to cultivate moderation in both Turkish and Kurdish communities. A project on the training of the staff of trade unions and the establishment of a surveillance commission for freedom of trade unions in Turkey (€ 150 000) was presented by the Confederation of progressive trade unions of Turkey (DISK).

The Commission has not included the word ‘minority’ in its description of specific projects because the term is understood in Turkey in a very specific legal sense, inherited from international legal instruments of the 1920s (Treaty of Lausanne), and applied to just three recognised minority groups (Greeks, Jews and Armenians). Other groups, which might in an Member State be described as minorities (Alevi Muslims, Suriani Christians, Kurds, Laz, etc.) do not have this status in Turkey at present.

The conference to which the Honourable Member refers might be that organised by TOSAV in cooperation with the Centre for applied studies in international negotiations (CANSIN) in June 1998. This conference took place at the Centre international de conferences of the ecumenical institute (in Bossey Céligny) and was entitled ‘The Dialogue: A Meeting of Turkish and Kurdish Opinion Leaders in Europe’.

The Honourable Member may care to note, however, that during the period 1992-1998 the Commission financed a number of projects under budget line B-704, intended to promote greater respect for human rights in Turkey. The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and the Parliament’s Secretariat a list of them. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/109

The Commission intends to continue to work to improve the protection of human rights -including the rights of minority cultural, religious and linguistic groups in Turkey, and will continue to target project assistance to this end. As from year 2000, the two relevant budget lines (B-705 and B-704) will be managed by the same Commission service, so as to enhance complementarity.

The Commission hopes that, now that Turkey is a candidate, diplomatic pressure will not be required to ensure that projects receiving Community grant aid can operate without difficulty.

(2001/C 26 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0768/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Misleading of Brussels by the Netherlands authorities

According to the Algemeen Dagblad of 29.2.2000 (‘Overheid misleidt Brussel’ the authorities mislead Brussels), cows at 350 Dutch dairy farms are suffering from an unidentified disease. A farm in Zelhem has been sealed off. The cows are displaying symptoms of listlessness. There have been problems with this unidentified disease for more than a year now. Some cows are falling down, and a few have even died. Pursuant to Directive 92/46/EEC (1) of 16 June 1992 on hygiene rules for milk, only milk from cows whose general state of health is not visibly impaired may be processed and sold. (See Annex A, point 1(a)(iv)). The state of health of the cows on the above-mentioned 350 farms is visibly unsatisfactory.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation in the Netherlands? If so, does it consider that the Netherlands is implementing European legislation particularly Directive 92/46/EEC correctly?

2. If the Commission considers that the Netherlands is not implementing European legislation correctly, how will it compel the Netherlands to do so?

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1.

(2001/C 26 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0788/00 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Contamination of Dutch dairy products

On 29 February there were a number of press reports on the possibility of Dutch dairy products being contaminated by a viral infection affecting dairy cattle at 350 to 600 farms.

Although the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture has apparently known about this for some time, no ban has been imposed on any farm and the milk from the infected animals is still being processed into drinking milk and other dairy products.

Has the Commission been informed by the Dutch authorities of this contamination?

Can the Commission say whether the Rapid Alert System has been activated to inform the other Member States?

Can the Commission say whether the contamination represents a risk to public health? If so, what action does the Commission intend taking to protect public health? C 26 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0768/00 and P-788/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

The Commission has been informed about the disease occurring in dairy cattle farms in the Netherlands by the Dutch authorities in the framework of Article 10 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 internal market (1), which establishes provisions on the information to be provided in the event of an animal disease that is likely to constitute a serious hazard to public or animal health. The matter has been reviewed during two recent meetings of the standing veterinary committee.

The Dutch authorities indicate that in a number of dairy cattle farms emaciation of milking cows has been reported, that these farms are specially checked by the Animal health service, and that investigations are being carried out to identify the precise causes of this disease. The results of these investigations suggest that in some farms the disease appeared after the use of a vaccine, which was contaminated with bovine viral diarrhea virus. This is a well-known virus of ruminants widespread in most countries in the world. There is no evidence or suspicion that it can affect human beings. In these farms all animals have been slaughtered and destroyed. However, in other farms the presence of infectious agents has not been confirmed and other causes (deficiency in cobalt and vitamin B12) are probably involved. Special instructions have been given to ensure that any cattle disease is immediately and properly reported to the authorities. The information so far available suggests that there is no particular risk for public health. However, the meat and other products (including milk) from unhealthy cattle are not used for human consumption, in accordance with Community legislation.

The rapid alert system has not been used in these circumstances as it only concerns products that have already been placed on the market.

An on-the spot inspection by the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office was carried out in the Netherlands in November 1999, as part of the ongoing assessment of implementation of Directive 92/46/ EC in Member States. This Directive requires Member States to ensure that milk producing farms are subject to regular inspections and that milk for human consumption must come from cattle which are healthy. This mission was carried out before this problem was identified. However, the report of this mission indicated that a procedure of the controlling authority for milk and milk-products (COKZ) is in force to prohibit the delivery of milk for human consumption in case of unsatisfactory results of the controls carried out.

The Commission is following the situation very carefully to ensure the protection of public and animal health. A further inspection visit by the Food and Verterinary Office is planned in the very near future in the matter. A report on this visit will be prepared in the normal manner and will be circulated to the Parliament.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2001/C 26 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0771/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Opting out of cooperation

Would the Council make sure that a country is able to opt out of EU cooperation or parts thereof, such as EMU cooperation, for instance, if this is what the country in question itself wishes, without the need for the other Member States to agree to this? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/111

(8 June 2000)

The Treaty contains no specific provisions concerning a Member State’s withdrawal, whether it be from the EU in general or the third phase of EMU.

(2001/C 26 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0779/00 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Common commercial policy and the IGC

In the Commission’s opinion on the Intergovernmental Conference it proposed that the provisions of the common commercial policy, including qualified-majority voting in the Council, should be extended to agreements on services and intellectual property.

Can the Commission confirm that the extension of the CCP will cover all services without exception, including those in the cultural field and audiovisual services in particular?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission’s opinion on the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) does not make any distinction between types of services for the purposes of extending the provisions on commercial policy in Article 133 (ex Article 113) EC Treaty.

(2001/C 26 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0789/00 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: The Common Agricultural Policy

In response to a Written Question from Lord Inglewood in the House of Lords (PQ 788 written 28 February 2000) Lady Hayman, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that ‘the Common Agricultural Policy as currently structured does not serve farmers, consumers and taxpayers well’. Does the Commission agree?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

The common agricultural policy (CAP) is an evolving policy. It has developed ever since its introduction to improve its contribution to the objectives laid down in Article 33 (ex Article 39) of the EC Treaty. With the 1992 reforms and the recent Agenda 2000 reforms, fundamental re-orientations of the CAP have been introduced in order to increase internal and external competitiveness, and the quality orientation of agricultural production, to ensure a fair standard of living for the farming community, to better integrate environmental goals into the CAP and to enhance rural development and the creation of complementary or alternative income and employment opportunities. C 26 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

The structure of the CAP and the current reform process reflect the interests of all Member States and those involved in agricultural policy. It should be noted that the Agenda 2000 reform was agreed unanimously by the Berlin European Council. Indeed, these reforms give Member States flexibility to tailor the implementation of the CAP to national situations to provide greater focus on rural development and environmental concerns.

The Commission does therefore not share the view attributed to the British minister.

(2001/C 26 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0815/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Recite II administration

Can the Commission explain the reasons behind the current unacceptable delays in the processing of applications and in the payment of grants to beneficiaries under its Recite II programme? Does it consider it acceptable that requests for payments submitted by projects in mid-November 1999 have still not been processed?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

The Commission received four applications in November l999 for payments in respect of projects under the programme of interregional cooperation (Recite II).

Two of these applications were complete and the payments were made within 45 days.

In the case of the other two, the beneficiaries sent in incomplete applications which were not in line with their contractual obligations. The Commission contacted both beneficiaries within five days to apprise them of the fact. After sending several reminders, the Commission finally received the extra information it needed in February 2000 and the payment procedure was launched at that time.

(2001/C 26 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0822/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN), Sergio Berlato (UEN) and Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Blood oranges a peripheral market

Sicily is in a peripheral geographical position as far as the marketing of its produce is concerned.

The cultivation of citrus fruit is a tradition in Southern Italy, in particular Sicily, and the whole community in small towns there revolves around this type of farming.

Blood oranges grow in Sicily, in particular in the ‘plain of Catania’ area, and they have special organoleptic qualities which are recognised even by medical science.

Can the Commission say whether it intends to devote resources and projects to developing this special product, which is unique in the world.

Whether it intends to facilitate promotion and marketing by bringing the Sicilian market closer to the European market? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/113

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Current Community legislation in the fruit and vegetable sector already covers measures which can be applied to blood-orange production, in the framework of operational programmes run by producer organisations (Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (1)).

The aims of these measures include improving the quality of products, developing their commercial exploitation, promoting products to consumers, creating organic product lines, promoting integrated production and other environment-friendly production methods, and reducing the volume of market withdrawals.

In addition to these measures, schemes are also available in the context of rural development as covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 (2).

Finally, under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1201/90 (3) on measures to increase citrus-fruit consumption, the ‘Associazione Siciliana Produttori Agrumicoli ed Ortofrutticoli’ is currently conducting a citrus-fruit promotion programme focusing particularly on blood oranges.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. (3) OJ L 119, 11.5.1990.

(2001/C 26 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0824/00 by Ieke van den Burg (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Access to Social Insurance (Additional Categories of Persons) Decree 1999 (Royal Decree of 24 December 1998): Exceptional Medical Expenses Act

1. Is the Commission aware that since 1 January 2000 the Netherlands Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ) has no longer applied to Dutch retired people who reside abroad and have private medical insurance? One consequence of this is that the AWBZ scheme no longer meets expenses, for example, of care in a residential care home or of home care or rehabilitation. People belonging to this category, who are now in effect excluded without any transition period, have contributed to the AWBZ scheme for decades. It is impossible to obtain private insurance to cover the risks hitherto covered by the AWBZ, particularly in the case of those who are medically at risk. People insured with health insurance funds, on the other hand, are still covered by the AWBZ.

2. Does not this treatment of people with private insurance violate the principle of free movement of persons within the European Union, freedom of residence for citizens and patients (cf. the judgment of the Court of Justice of 28 April 1998 in case C-158/96) in other Member States and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1)?

3. Will the Commission take any measures against this step by the Netherlands Government, and if so, what?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2000)

According to the information at the Commission’s disposal, it is true that since 1 January 2000 beneficiaries of long-term Netherlands social security benefits (Wet op de arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzeker- ing Act on Insurance against Incapacity to Work and Algemene Ouderdomswet General Old Age Insurance Act) residing on the territory of another Member State who are not members of the compulsory C 26 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

sickness insurance scheme but are privately insured are no longer entitled to coverage for exceptional medical expenses (Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziektekosten General Act on Exceptional Medical Expenses) and will no longer be required to pay the associated social contributions. In the context of introducing this residence clause, a transitional measure was adopted allowing persons who were voluntarily covered before 1 January 2000 to retain a right to financial compensation for expenses linked to certain forms of ongoing hospitalisation, as long as care is necessary.

Numerous complaints from persons affected by this Netherlands measure have also been submitted to the Commission.

However, the Commission wishes to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that Community law does not impinge on Member States’ powers to regulate their social security systems. In the absence of social security harmonisation at Community level, each Member State is free to determine the conditions governing the right or obligation to join a social security scheme and the conditions which create an entitlement to social benefits. These principles are based on the consistent case law of the Court, notably recalled in points 17 and 17 of the Kohll judgment of 28 April 1998 (C-158/96), mentioned by the Honourable Member.

It is true that Member States must respect Community law in exercising their powers. In this connection, one should note Articles 39 and 42 (ex-Articles 48 and 51) of the EC Treaty and Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self- employed persons and to members of their family moving within the Community (1) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (2), which are designed to coordinate the statutory social security schemes of the Member States (3).

However, given that the parties affected by the Netherlands reform are privately insured in respect of exceptional medical expenses, the protection guaranteed by Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 574/72 cannot be relied on in this particular case.

Hence, the Commission is not in a position to intervene in this area, which concerns the exclusive competence of a Member State.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971. (2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972. (3) Latest consolidated version: Regulation (EC) No 118/97 OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(2001/C 26 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0825/00 by Ieke van den Burg (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Refusal of private health insurers in the Netherlands to provide cover for frontier workers with compulsory insurance under the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ)

1. Is the Commission aware that frontier workers who work in the Netherlands but reside in another Member State and who have compulsory insurance under the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ) pursuant to Regulation 1408/71 (1) are rejected by Dutch private medical insurers because of their place of residence? This means that, although such frontier workers have compulsory AWBZ insurance in the Netherlands, they are required to take out supplementary private insurance in a different country, a combination which is expensive and impractical?

2. Does not this refusal violate the principle of free movement of workers?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/115

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 2000)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that Community law does not affect the Member States’ responsibility for their social security systems. In the absence of any Community- level harmonisation in the field of social security, the laws of each Member State are free to stipulate the conditions for membership of a social insurance scheme, as well as the conditions of eligibility for social security benefits. These principles derive from the invariable practice of the Court of Justice.

Community law is therefore not in conflict with national schemes, such as that in the Netherlands, which do not provide for compulsory health insurance for workers whose income exceeds a certain level, and who must then take out private health insurance.

When exercising their powers, the Member States must respect Community law. In this connection, particular reference should be made to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (1) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (2), which seek to coordinate the Member States’ social security systems (3).

However, the protection guaranteed under these Community regulations cannot be invoked in the present case because the persons concerned are not covered by a compulsory health insurance scheme provided for under the Netherlands’ Sickness Insurance Funds Act (Ziekenfondswet).

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971. (2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972. (3) Last consolidated version: Regulation (EC) No 118/97, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(2001/C 26 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0826/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Greyhound racing

Around the middle of January, Commissioner Fischler said that he was aware of press reports alleging ill- treatment of racing greyhounds (1). Greyhounds are subjected to appalling cruelty once they are no longer capable of running races. According to Mr Fischler, no Community support is provided to enterprises rearing greyhounds in the Community.

1. Can the Commission confirm that no Community support is provided in any way to businesses, people and/or organisations breeding greyhounds in the Community? If not, will the Commission review its financial support programmes in order to establish beyond all doubt whether or not Community support is provided to businesses, people and/or organisations that breed greyhounds in the Community?

2. Does the Commission provide Community support to businesses, people and/or organisations that organise greyhound races in the Community? If so, how much is made available for this purpose per annum, and to whom are subsidies granted?

3. On the basis of existing European legislation, can the Commission do anything about the ill- treatment of greyhounds in the fifteen EU Member States? If so, will the Commission order an inquiry into the ill-treatment of greyhounds which has been complained of in the media?

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 90. C 26 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0919/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Greyhounds in Spain and Ireland

Greyhounds raised for racing in Ireland are frequently killed or exported to Spain once they have come to the end of their racing career. Once in Spain these animals are often poorly treated and the Spanish authorities do not intervene to ensure standards are maintained.

In the past, Ireland has received EU subsidies to assist greyhound breeders. Will the Commission provide assurance that this is no longer the case? Will the Commission also indicate what measures it is taking, or intends to take, to bring about an end to the mistreatment of greyhounds in Ireland and Spain, particularly with regards to old and/or sick dogs?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0826/00 and E-0919/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The Commission is very concerned about the welfare of animals and gives it a high priority. Community rules exist in respect of animals, including dogs, for their protection during transport and in relation to their use for research purposes.

Under the protocol on the protection and welfare of animals annexed to the EC Treaty, the Community and Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in formulating and implementing the Community’s agriculture, transport, internal market and research policies, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.

On the other hand, the conditions under which dogs like greyhounds are kept and raced within Member States are not regulated by Community law and in consequence this aspect is a matter within the sole jurisdiction of the Member States concerned. As it is the duty of the individual Member States to find a solution to this problem, the Commission can only call upon responsible authorities to eliminate the ill- treatment to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission can confirm that no Community aid is now available for investment in greyhound rearing or racing. It is possible that Community aid is awarded for other purposes to companies, people or organisations, who rear greyhounds or are involved in greyhound racing in the Community. In such cases it is not a condition of Community funding that beneficiaries are not involved in greyhound rearing or racing and the Commission has no information on such beneficiaries.

(2001/C 26 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0832/00 by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Commission

(10 March 2000)

Subject: Clarification further to the answer to Oral Question H-0125/00 on internal competitions COM/ TA/99, COM/TB/99, and COM/TC/99

According to the answer to Oral Question H-0125/00 (1):

the Commission Director-General for Personnel and Administration, Mr Reichenbach, and Vice- President Neil Kinnock decided in agreement on 2 December 1999 that the closing date for applications for competitions COM/TA/99, COM/TB/99, and COM/TC/99 should be put back from 30 July 1999 to 22 December 1999. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/117

the decision was officially taken by Mr Reichenbach in his capacity as appointing authority because he was ‘concerned that several potential candidates for the competition had been denied admission purely on the technical grounds that they had not submitted all required identity documents in the precisely prescribed manner’.

Since that is the case, how many times and on what dates were candidates admitted to the above competitions invited to take part in competition procedures before 2 December 1999? Is this the first time that candidates have protested against their exclusion on ‘purely technical grounds’? If not, what has been the policy on previous occasions? How many candidates have been admitted to each competition following extension of the deadline? What are their nationalities, and where were they working at the time when they became entitled to enter the above-mentioned internal competitions? How many candidates were admitted to the competitions as at 30 July 1999, and how many are eligible at present? If the number of candidates eligible for the competitions has been raised, was the decision taken on account of the Commission’s increased requirements or in order to protect the interests of the candidates already admitted? Under what article of the Staff Regulations is an appointing authority empowered to put back the closing date for applications for a competition because it is concerned that many candidates might be excluded on purely technical grounds?

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

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Candidates for the different competitions were invited to the tests of 6 December and 7 December 1999 once, by letters of 12 November (COM/TA and COM/TB) and 15 November 1999 (COM/TC) respectively.

It is the first time that, due to case law, the notice of an internal competition has been completely changed.

Notices of competition always provide a procedure for candidates who are not accepted to request re- examination of their application by the Selection Board. The admission criteria for this competition were significantly different from those in previous competitions of that nature. As a result, many candidates who were deemed ineligible, sent complaints to the appointing authority for these particular competitions.

Following the correct submission of the formal documents, the numbers of candidates admitted to the written tests of March 2000 are:

COM/TA/99: 341 (increase of 100)

COM/TB/99: 182 (increase of 57)

COM/TC/99: 255 (increase of 78)

The Commission does not gather statistical information about where candidates were working when they became entitled to enter the competitions as this is not relevant information in the context of the competition. The nationalities of the admitted candidates are confidential until the competition is concluded, but the names of successful candidates will be published on the Commission’s internal website.

As mentioned in the answer to the Honourable Member’s oral question H-125/00 during question time at Parliament’s part session of February 2000, the number of successful candidates for each competition has been re-examined in the light of the number of additional candidates, specifically to ensure that those candidates who had been accepted initially are not disadvantaged.

The numbers of available posts for the different competitions were therefore raised as follows:

COM/TA/99: from 80 to 110

COM/TB/99: from 40 to 60

COM/TC/99: from 30 to 40 C 26 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

The drawing up of notices of competition is governed by Article 1 of Annex III ‘Competitions’ to the Staff Regulations. Point 1 specifies that ‘notices of competitions shall be drawn up by the Appointing Authority after consulting the Joint Committee’ and that the notice must specify the closing date for applications.

(2001/C 26 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0834/00 by Maria Berger (PSE) to the Council

(20 March 2000)

Subject: Surveillance of international telecommunications

At the hearing ‘The European Union and Data Protection’, held at the EP on 22-23 February 2000, STOA delegate Duncan Campbell reported on the current situation with regard to Echelon, the global interception system. It emerged that Echelon had intercepted economically significant data in Europe to the detriment of the European economy.

Contrariwise John Mogg, Director-General of the Commission, and Commissioner Martin Bangemann said that Echelon was nothing more than ‘press rumours’. This was clearly rebutted in statements from senior officials such as Martin Brady, Director of the Australian Secret Service, Defence Signal Directorate.

There are many indications that the Council and the Commission have been well aware of this interception system, but have taken no action and deliberately kept Parliament uninformed.

All of this notwithstanding, the Council and the Commission have even amended the European legislation in a ‘US-friendly’ sense by following the main thrust of an American law of 1994 (CALEA) and the Council took account of their wishes in its resolution of 17 January 1995 (1) on the lawful interception of telecommunications.

1. Which Council services at what time were aware of telecommunications interception in Europe and what action was taken against it?

2. What measures will the Council take in future to safeguard electronic communications in Europe against bugging operations and to guarantee the protection of personal and economic data?

3. Was the Council aware that Enfopol documents emanate from the International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar) under US chairmanship and why was Enfopol 90 never discussed, but only dealt with through a written procedure?

(1) OJ C 329, 4.11.1996, p. 1.

(8 June 2000)

1. The deliberations of the Council on the technical aspects of the lawful interception by the competent authorities of the Member States of telecommunications are prepared by the Police Cooperation Working Party. This was the case for the abovementioned Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 and for the Council conclusions of 28 May 1998 on encryption and law enforcement.

As concerns Echelon, the Council has already given several replies to parliamentary questions (H-0330/97, P-0501/98, 0-0057/98, H-0546/98, H-0872/98, H-0889/98).

2. As concerns the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector, the Council recalls the European Parliament and Council Directive of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (1). 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/119

3. In the Council Enfopol documents are preparatory documents concerning police cooperation. In 1999 the Council examined a draft for a Resolution on the lawful interception of telecommunications in relation to new technologies. This draft text was not adopted by the Council.

(1) OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998, page 1.

(2001/C 26 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0851/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (21 March 2000)

Subject: Outlying regions

Pursuant to Article 299 of the EC Treaty the Commission undertook to submit, by the end of 1999, a draft regulation on the specific measures to be applied to the outlying regions. It is now the beginning of March 2000 and there is as yet no sign of that draft.

1. What are the reasons for the delay in adopting the draft regulation on the specific measures to be applied to outlying regions?

2. On what date is the draft regulation due to be adopted and then submitted to the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (28 April 2000)

On 14 March 2000 the Commission adopted the report requested by the Cologne European Council on the measures to implement Article 299(2) of the Treaty the outermost regions of the European Union (1). It transmitted the report to Parliament on 15 March 2000.

The Commission preferred to delay the adoption of this report, initially planned for December 1999, in order to make a more detailed study of the memoranda presented by the three Member States in question in November/December 1999, and the positions presented at the partnership meeting of 23 November 1999.

(1) COM(2000) 147 final.

(2001/C 26 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0853/00 by Maria Carrilho (PSE) to the Council (20 March 2000)

Subject: Mozambique

It is currently impossible to assess the scale of the disaster which has struck Mozambique, its land and its people, either at present a period during which survival is the absolute priority or in the medium term, a time of reconstruction in which restoring hope and providing resources will be essential if the people of Mozambique are to rediscover within themselves the enthusiastic commitment which had been contributing so much to the development of the country.

How is the Council intending to ensure (as far as it can) that the transition from the current stage to the reconstruction stage proceeds smoothly?

What material and organisational resources is the Council intending to make available during the reconstruction stage, and over what timescale (if known)? C 26 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(8 June 2000)

The Council discussed the situation in Mozambique on 20 March. It had followed closely and with great concern the situation in Mozambique (and other parts of the region) where the flooding had been one of the most serious catastrophes to have occurred in recent years. It expressed its solidarity with the people and government of Mozambique and the other countries of the region as they grappled with the devastating consequences of the flooding and its sympathy with them as they set about rebuilding their shattered lives.

It took note of the conclusions of the mission to Mozambique from 2 to 4 March, shortly after the Mozambique government asked for help, by the President of the Development Council, the Portuguese Secretary of State for Development Cooperation, Mr Amado, and the Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian aid, Mr Nielson, to assess the scale of the damage and identify priority needs.

The Council also recognised the broader impact this catastrophe was likely to have on Mozambique’s economy and development. It has endorsed the Mozambique government’s twin-track approach aiming at meeting the immediate needs for relief while working to rehabilitate affected areas and to ensure both macro-economic stability and the maintenance of on-going programmes of development assistance.

On the former, the Council noted that the Member States and the Community have to date pledged over € 85 million in emergency humanitarian aid as well as further aid in kind. The Council underlined that this represented the major share of international contributions reported by the UN (OCHA) which amounted to over € 120 million. In addition, the Council noted with satisfaction the solidarity shown by the EU’s citizens in their generous response to the appeals for assistance.

On the latter, several Member States and the Community have already announced a total of € 66,5 million in aid for rehabilitation and budgetary support and a further € 156 million in debt relief. The Council noted that in addition to this support, € 100 million were disbursed in 1999 in Mozambique under the Community’s co-operation programme and up to € 150 million are expected to be disbursed in 2000.

The Member States and the Community will continue to participate actively in Maputo in the coordination of rehabilitation being led by the Mozambique government and look forward to making a positive contribution to the donor conference to be held in Rome at the end of April/beginning of May. It is only at this time that the needs will have been assessed properly and therefore that the full picture of the resources that the Member States and the Community will make available during the reconstruction period will become clear.

The Council will continue to follow the situation in Mozambique closely.

(2001/C 26 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0854/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against EU citizens in Italian banks

Is the Commission aware that Italian banks charge a commission for money transferred into an Italian account from elsewhere within the Euro zone or for paying in when the transfer or payment is made by an EU citizen who is not resident in Italy? This commission is not charged for EU citizens who are resident in Italy. Does the Commission not feel this is a breach of Community law guaranteeing equality of treatment for EU citizens? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/121

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The cross-border credit transfer Directive (1) adopted in January 1997 and in force since 14 August 1999 introduces provisions on the transparency and performance of cross-border credit transfers. Among other things it defines how transfer charges are to be distributed, thus allowing the possibility of avoiding double charging. If there is no other arrangement between the customer and sending institution, the transfer is by default an ‘OUR transfer’: i.e. the sum of all charges of the complete transaction is borne by the sender and the beneficiary does not have to pay anything. Charges which are levied contrary to the provisions of the Directive can be reclaimed by the customer directly from the bank.

The Commission has at present no information that Italian banks as a general practice charge commissions for cross-border credit transfers to Italian non-resident accounts. If the Honourable Member has information concerning such practices, the Commission would be prepared to further examine and pursue them.

However, the Commission is aware that despite the provisions of the cross-border credit transfer Directive, cases of double charging on cross-border transfers do still exist in Italy regardless of the resident or non- resident status of the sender or beneficiary. Such practices are contrary to Community legislation and are pursued when they are made known.

The fact that Italy has not yet complied with its obligation to transpose the cross-border credit transfer Directive does not mean that the provisions of the Directive do not have to be observed. According to judgements of the Court of justice, a sufficiently defined directive, which has not been implemented in national law by the deadline established in the directive, can be relied upon by complainants in national courts.

(1) Directive 97/5/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 27 January 1997, OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2001/C 26 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0855/00 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: UK map for Structural Funds Objective 2

When in 2000 did the United Kingdom Government write to the European Commission requesting the suspension of the process of approval for the Objective 2 map for the European Structural Funds 2000- 2006?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The British authorities wrote on 2 February 2000 requesting suspension of the procedure while they considered changes to the list. The Commission replied on 4 February 2000, asking for the revisions to be submitted quickly so that the final list could be decided in order to clear the way for the programming of actions on the ground.

Following a second letter on 24 February, in which the Commission again emphasised the urgency of a decision, the United Kingdom replied by formally removing their suspension on 2 March 2000 and rescinded their request for changes. C 26 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0863/00 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba (TDI) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Compliance of the bylaws of Monte dei Paschi di Siena with the 1998 Law No 461 and with European legislation on the internal market and competition

On Saturday, 5 February 2000, the Monte dei Paschi di Siena Foundation approved its new bylaws, as provided by Law No 461 of 23 December 1998. The bylaws stipulated that five individuals nominated by the municipal authorities, four by the provincial authorities and one by the regional authorities should be appointed members of the Board of Directors, to the exclusion, therefore, of members nominated by other bodies or individuals.

Law No 461, however, with the attendant delegated decree and official guidelines, stipulates that the boards of directors of such banking foundations must include both adequate local representation and individuals working in other fields.

No other banking foundation bylaws contain the proviso that their board of directors should consist only of members nominated by the above-mentioned authorities.

Moreover, the bylaws do not contain any rules on incompatibility; hence individuals who were involved in the actual establishment of the Board of Directors, such as the mayor of Siena himself, may also sit on the Board.

This runs counter to the aforementioned Law No 461 and the related delegated decree, which call for independence and absence of conflict of interest i.e. administrators or employees of the local/regional/ provincial authorities may not join any banking foundation bodies.

The Commission is currently checking the compliance of Law No 461 on bank restructuring with European legislation.

In the light of this, does the Commission deem the bylaws of the Monte di Paschi Foundation, specifically with regard to the two above matters, to comply with the relevant provisions of the Treaty and with Community laws on competition and the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2000)

The Commission is examining the compatibility of Italian Law No 461/98 with the rules on competition, particularly those concerning state aid.

On 23 March, after examining the documents provided by the Italian authorities, the Commission requested further information on the tax advantages provided for in that Law in favour of banking foundations and banks undergoing mergers.

The problem raised by the Honourable Member relates to the compatibility of the statute of a banking foundation (Monte dei Paschi di Siena) with Law No 461/98 regarding the appointment of representatives of the local authorities to the board of directors of the foundation in question.

Such a problem involving the compatibility of a bylaw of a banking foundation with Italian law is not caught by the rules on state aid or those governing the single market in banking services. It therefore falls outside the Commission’s remit and is a matter for the Italian courts. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/123

(2001/C 26 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0869/00 by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Minimum level of training for seafarers

Could the Commission indicate which Member States are enforcing Article 9(3) and (4) of Council Directive 98/35/EC (1) regarding the minimum level of training of seafarers?

Secondly, could the Commission confirm that at a meeting set up under Article 13 of Directive 94/58/ EC (2) held on 10 November 1999 it was pointed out that in the Philippines ‘there is an absence of a quality standard system’, that most of the selected institutions ‘do not appear to meet international standards’ and that, in fact, only one institute out of 130 is up to standard?

Can the Commission indicate what it intends to do about this disgraceful state of affairs?

(1) OJ L 172, 17.6.1998, p. 1. (2) OJ L 110, 28.4.1999, p. 35.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The Commission is currently examining the national implementation measures notified by most Member States in order to assess conformity with the provisions of Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 on minimum level of training of seafarers (1).

During the 2nd meeting of the committee set up under Article 13 of Council Directive 94/58/EC of 22 November 1994 (2) in November 1999, the Commission presented briefly the major findings of a study made by the World Maritime University (WMU) in Sweden in July 1998, aimed at assessing the extent to which the maritime education and training (MET) systems in the major labour-supplying Asian countries (China, Indian, Indonesia and Philippines) comply with the requirements of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978, as amended in 1995. As regards the Philippines, the study examined six MET institutions indicated by the national authorities as most complying with international standards.

According to the results of the study, maritime education and training in the Philippines is mostly a private sector activity as very few MET institutions are owned by the government. The major problems highlighted in the study are related to the lack of qualified teaching staff, the inadequate training equipment, as well as the absence of a quality standards system. Most of the establishments analysed in the study do not meet international standards while very few institutions out of over a hundred involved in training in the whole country comply with the international requirements.

Nevertheless, the Philippines authorities have confirmed to the Commission that the government had taken measures to redress the situation and that substantial improvements have been realised since the WMU survey.

In compliance with the provisions of Directive 98/35/EC, the Commission is assisting Member States in the evaluation of third countries’ certificates by identifying MET institutes satisfying the STCW standards and requirements. In this context, the Commission has launched another study in order to analyse the MET systems of Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Croatia and the Baltic countries. Moreover, as agreed in the last committee meeting, the Commission will establish an ad hoc group of national experts and Commission C 26 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

representatives to evaluate the maritime training and certification systems of the main maritime labour supplying third countries, by carrying out on the spot visits. The Philippines is one of the priority countries to be considered by the group.

(1) OJ L 172, 17.6.1998 amending Council Directive 94/58/EC. (2) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.

(2001/C 26 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0873/00 by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: VAT

Since 31 December 1992 we have had a ‘temporary’ system of indirect taxation in the EU. The European Parliament has repeatedly pointed to the need for the introduction of a definitive system based on the principle of taxation in the country of origin. To date there have been only slight changes in the temporary VAT system.

The smooth operation of the single market would require a definitive system which does not further distort the free play of the market and hence the best possible allocation of resources. However, the Commission’s work programme for 2000 does not seem to envisage any measures to this end. Does the Commission still want to introduce a definitive and efficient VAT system? What are the reasons for its apparent immobility?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s view that only the introduction of a definitive system of VAT, based on the principle of taxation in the Member State of origin, will ensure smooth operation of the single market by enabling transactions in the Community to be treated in the same way as domestic transactions in a Member State. Such a definitive, origin-based system is administratively simple enough to satisfy traders and tax administrations while being effective in combating fraud and tax evasion.

When the temporary system was adopted, the Council gave a legal and political undertaking to move towards introducing the definitive system within five years. In 1996, to overcome reservations expressed by the Member States, the Commission presented a communication in which it proposed a gradual, stage by stage movement to the definitive system (1).

Since then, it must be said, no notable progress has been made, and the proposals presented by the Commission with regard to VAT have largely failed.

On 29 March 2000 the Commission, acknowledging this situation, adopted the principle of a new strategy which is intended to give priority to improving the existing system, without in any way abandoning the longer term objective of a definitive origin-based system (2).

In the short term, we will have to relaunch discussions on proposals before the Council aimed at simplifying the existing rules and applying them more uniformly, adapting Community legislation to the demands of the new economy, for example electronic commerce and postal services, and reactivating and reinforcing administrative cooperation in this field.

If we achieve these objectives we will create the conditions in the longer term for the move to a definitive VAT system, which continues to be our goal.

(1) COM(96) 328 final. (2) SEC(2000) 528. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/125

(2001/C 26 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0876/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against extensive meat production in the Autonomous Region of the Azores by Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999

The Commission’s reply to my question E-0039/00 (1) is rather surprising. Does this reply mean that the Commission’s view is that in countries with large foraging areas bovine animals are systematically castrated?

In the Autonomous Region of the Azores, in which one of the most extensive forms of cattle farming in Europe is practised, precisely because it has ‘large foraging areas’ that are undoubtedly more stable than those in France, the United Kingdom and even Ireland, this is certainly not the case, because of the Azores’ traditional, individualised approach to farming, which contrasts with the more modern, open-field approach in those other countries.

Council Regulation 1254/1999 (2) makes the assumption (see Recital 5) that the conditions of steer production necessarily differ from those of bull production, which explains the distinction made in Article 4. Given that this assumption is totally unjustified, at least with regard to the Autonomous Region of the Azores, will the Commission consider amending the provisions to ensure that they reflect the real situation?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 134. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The answer given by the Commission to written question E-0039/00 from the Honourable Member (1)was intended to make clear that conditions of rearing and the quality of meat obtained are different as between non-castrated male bovine animals (bulls) and castrated ones (steers). The reference to Member States with a large area under fodder crops was a simple observation of fact.

The Commission is well-aware of cattle farming conditions in the Azores as the result of a special mission carried out at the end of 1993 to monitor the scheme to support livestock production contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products (2) (Poseima programme).

The basic issue is that the Council recognised that, at an overall level, there are two production systems for male bovine animals and that in the case of steers it was appropriate to make two successive payments. As regards production of bulls, on the other hand, as long ago as 1996 the Council pointed out that the granting of a second instalment of premium had led to the production of particularly heavy animals and that therefore this needed to be rectified by abolishing the second payment, while allowing a period of transition for adaptation in the case of bulls produced in regions of traditional extensive production. This transitional period ended in 1999.

However, if the national authorities consider that the production of bulls specifically in the Azores deserves special support, then Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (3) already provides for a flexible framework of Community payments to be introduced by the Member States concerned.

Finally, the 5th recital to Regulation (EC) No 1254/99 merely recalls this situation without suggesting that Community livestock-farming should be influenced in one direction or the other.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 134. (2) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992. (3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. C 26 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0879/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Council

(23 March 2000)

Subject: EU initiatives on education in the Third World

With reference to the question tabled by Graham Watson MEP on 19 November 1999 (No. P-2163/99 (1)) regarding initiatives to promote literacy in lesser developed countries, can the Council clarify what collective action has so far been taken by the Member States to promote education in the Third World? How exactly does the Council intend to develop the provision for education in its aid programmes?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 107.

(8 June 2000)

1. The Council would reiterate that it considers support for education in developing countries of vital importance, in particular as it can make a significant contribution to the fight against poverty which is one of the principal objectives of Community development policy.

2. The Council has no information on action taken by Member States, in the framework of their bilateral aid, to promote education in the third world.

3. The Council would draw the honourable Members’ attention to the fact that the Commission is responsible for the development and management of the Community’s aid programmes.

(2001/C 26 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0885/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Projects financed under LIFE II

On 24 February 2000 the Official Journal of the European Communities published the communication of six decisions (Nos C(1999) 1800, C(1999) 4712, C(1999) 2414, C(1999) 4063, C(1999) 2073 and C(1999) 2261) to grant Community financial support for demonstration projects forwarded under the LIFE instrument concerning the environment (1).

As a result of these decisions 94 projects were selected 1999 under LIFE-Nature and 152 projects under LIFE-Environment submitted by organisations, public or private bodies, local authorities and businesses.

For these projects a total of EUR 64.8 million was allocated under LIFE-Nature (7.9 million for projects submitted by Italian applicants) and a total of EUR 65 million under LIFE-Environment (9.4 million for projects submitted by Italian applicants). For the 26 projects under LIFE-Environment and the 19 projects under LIFE-Nature Italy therefore received a total of EUR 17.3 million, equivalent to approximately Lit 33.5 billion.

The beneficiaries of these projects belong to the following regions: Lombardy (7 projects), the Veneto (8 projects), Emilia Romagna (2 projects), Liguria (3 projects), Tuscany (6 projects), Calabria (1 project), Umbria (1 project), Sicily (4 projects), Basilicata (1 project), Lazio (9 projects), Apulia (1 project) and Sardinia (2 projects). Among the projects submitted by Italian applicants not one from Piedmont was selected.

Can the Commission explain why none of the Italian projects selected was from the Piedmont region and whether this was due to a lack of adequate information? If so, can it say who is responsible? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/127

Finally, can the Commission say whether any projects were submitted from the Piedmont region and, if so, how many there were and why none of them was selected?

(1) OJ C 52, 24.2.2000, p. 4.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The projects which the Italian authorities submitted to the Commission in 1999 for funding under Council Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 of 15 July 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (LIFE) (1) were selected in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 9(a) of that Regulation and the procedure set out in Article 13 thereof.

Sufficient funding was available to support only a proportion of the selected projects, taken in the order of classification established during the evaluation phase.

In 1999, none of the projects from submitted from the Piedmont region were classified in a position which resulted in funding. The same is true for seven other regions of Italy.

The Commission does not believe that this can be attributed to a lack of adequate information on the territory of the Piedmont region. Indeed, in 1999 the region benefited from a LIFE information day organised in Turin by the regional authorities and attended by a representative of the Commission.

A total of 12 projects were submitted from Piedmont in 1999 for funding under the LIFE Regulation. All of them related to action covered by Article 2(1)(b).

However, the projects granted LIFE funding in 1999 include LIFE 99 ENV/IT/000051, which was put forward by CENSIS in Rome but is to be carried out in the province of Novara, and LIFE 99 NAT/IT/6279, to be carried out by the Ministry of the Environment in collaboration with all the Italian regions.

(1) OJ L 181, 20.7.1996.

(2001/C 26 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0897/00 by Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Crisis in the citrus fruit sector in southern Italy

Farmers in Sicily and southern Italy are worried about the crisis the sector has been going through. Although Sicily is in a good geographical position for the cultivation of quality oranges it is at a disadvantage because of its backward economy and its distance from European markets.

All these factors, aggravated by competition from citrus fruits from third countries produced at lower cost, are seriously threatening the survival of tens of thousands of farms, with serious social repercussions on employment and hence on the economy of a region with very high unemployment, where the major source of jobs is, precisely, agriculture.

No less important is the environmental impact and the enormous genetic resources which would be lost if this type of farming were abandoned.

In order to reassure citrus fruit producers, can the Commission say:

1. what steps it intends to take to support citrus fruit production in Sicily and southern Italy;

2. whether it intends, with regard to the COM in citrus fruit, to revise the aid system by giving preference to aid per hectare, which would be more compatible with the principles of Agenda 2000, replacing the current system of aid per product sent for processing? C 26 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

1. To solve the structural problems of Italian citrus-fruit growing, Community legislation envisages two types of measure: operational programmes run by producer organisations as provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), and schemes forming part of rural development as set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/99 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (2).

2. The Commission feels that the introduction of aid per hectare is not the right way to go in the Community citrus-fruit sector. Aid of this kind does not encourage the conversion to new varieties which is necessary to keep up with trends in demand.

Furthermore, area aid is only worth considering if it applies to all land under cultivation, including areas growing fruit for the fresh-fruit market.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 26 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0905/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 March 2000)

Subject: Alteration of the cultural heritage in FYROM

Extensive alterations have reportedly been made recently to the architecture of the Church of Ayios Dimitrios in the town of Bitola (Monastir) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), which clearly constitute alteration of the cultural heritage of that historical monument and of the region in general. Will the Council say whether it is aware of this situation, what steps it intends to take to put an immediate end to these actions, and whether it has taken or intends to take any measures to protect the historical monuments and the cultural heritage in general in the Balkans?

(26 June 2000)

The Council would point out that on 24 January 2000 it issued negotiating directives to the Commission for the negotiation of a stabilisation and association Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. These directives foresee that the future Agreement would contain provisions on cultural cooperation and in particular the conservation and restoration of monuments and cites.

(2001/C 26 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0909/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Subsidies under the CAP for cruelty to animals

The Commission’s answer to Question E-0039/00 (1) states that bovine animals are castrated at a very early age (in order to minimise their suffering). However, according to specialised literature (Compassion in World Farming Trust, ‘For their own good a study of farm animal mutilations’, October 1994, p.18) quoting Robertson et al, 1994, any method of castration causes severe pain, irrespective of the animal’s age (the test covered animals 6, 21 and 42 days old). 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/129

Furthermore, the answer mentions practices which are common in 3 out of the 15 Member States of the European Union. Whilst the description of the situation in these 3 countries may be true, this does not mean that in many other cases the situation is not different.

In particular the situation described does not apply to the Autonomous Region of the Azores. In view of the fact that European Union regulations apply throughout EU territory and that no exemption is envisaged for any geographical area, does the Commission not consider that it is incomprehensible that the CAP should encourage the castration of bovine animals, thereby promoting the suffering of animals for no valid reason?

When does the Commission intend to propose the revision of Regulation No 1254/1999 (2), so as to stop encouraging cruelty to bovine animals?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 134. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

The Commission asks the Honourable Member also to refer to its reply to Written Question E-0876/00 (1) on the same topic.

While common agricultural policy schemes take account of traditional farming practices, the Commission gives due consideration to questions of animal welfare. Available information gives no grounds, however, for proposing the regulatory change desired by the Honourable Member.

(1) See page 125.

(2001/C 26 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0910/00 by Margot Keßler (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Aachen-Heerlen cross-border industrial estate

The Avantis cross-border industrial estate between the cities of Aachen and Heerlen on the German-Dutch border has been recognised and supported by the EU as a European model project. Work on its construction began in September 1998, and € 30 million has been spent on it. In the meanwhile, various legal proceedings against the industrial estate are pending, both in the Netherlands and in the Federal Republic of Germany. Moreover, a petition on this subject has been lodged with the European Parliament (no 685/96).

The party which has brought the legal proceedings, as well as taking the initiative politically and lodging the petition, against the Avantis cross-border industrial estate is the Nature Conservation Association of Germany NABU, Stadtverband Aachen.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is it true that, in accordance with German law on nature conservation, NABU was involved in the planning procedure as a recognised nature conservation association and should therefore be regarded as a party to the procedure?

2. Is it true that the official responsible for administration of the Avantis project at DG XI D 02, Oliver Schall, is also a member of NABU, and does not the Commission regard this as: (a) in case of bias, (b) incompatible with the guidelines on transparency adopted by the Commission? C 26 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

3. Is it true that DG XI D 02 has commissioned an expert opinion on environmental issues relating to the Avantis industrial estate, and that: (a) the expert who is to deliver it was given the assignment at the proposal of the above official, (b) the expert, who is regarded as objective, Professor Stubbe of Halle, is himself a member of NABU, and has he made this clear?

4. Does the Commission agree that for an objection by NABU to be dealt with by a member of NABU and assessed in the light of an expert opinion delivered by a member of NABU, who has been given the assignment at the proposal of a member of NABU, does not constitute an impartial and transparent procedure?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

1. The Honourable Member’s first question relates to German law. The Commission does not have the authority to answer it.

2. The Commission would recall that all European citizens have the fundamental right to join any association or to belong to any religion of their choice. That freedom also applies to European officials, inasmuch as the rules of the Staff Regulations for officials of the European Communities guarantee that they perform their duties impartially, independently, objectively and competently. The Commission therefore does not have to know to which organisations its officials belong. The Commission would stress that its decisions are the result of a collective assessment involving several departments and hierarchical levels. It therefore has no reason to doubt the integrity and impartiality of the official referred to by the Honourable Member.

3. In choosing an expert to formulate a scientific opinion on the Avantis case, the Commission sought a person who had recognised expertise on hamsters, was a university professor, had an excellent knowledge of German and/or Dutch, and was not involved in the regional debate surrounding the Avantis project. The Commission chose Professor Stubbe on the basis of these four criteria, which are reflected in the study contract referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission will question the professor about any activities within the NABU. It believes a large number of professors of biology and ecology are members of the principal nature conservation associations in their respective Member States.

4. On the basis of the information available to the Commission, in view of the freedom of European citizens to join the associations of their choice and given the internal procedures for the control and assessment of the information which it receives, the Commission does not believe that there was any conflict of interest in the procedure for the study of the Avantis case.

The Commission has not yet considered Professor Stubbe’s report. It has not adopted a position on the complaint concerned and has not considered which points it feels should be taken into consideration.

(2001/C 26 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0913/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Potentially dangerous developments on French farms

Since 1994 the French agriculture ministry has been making considerable efforts to harmonise agricultural installations (livestock housing, slurry pits etc.). These installations are built to low-level specifications and are of inadequate quality, and have the potential to cause considerable environmental damage. In the foreseeable future these structures, which can no longer be restored, are in danger of collapsing. They are 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/131

consequently both an environmental and a financial liability. To date 50 % of French agricultural holdings have already applied the standards laid down by the government, even though these seem to be contrary to EU law.

Is the Commission aware of this problem, and does it plan to take measures to clarify the situation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Since introduction of the rural development strand of Agenda 2000 (July 1999) support for investment on agricultural holdings in the Community, and therefore in France, is restricted to those complying with minimum standards regarding the environment, hygiene and animal welfare (Article 5 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)).

The standards embrace the Community rules and any complementary national provisions. Compliance with them is checked and non-compliance debars from Community aid.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 26 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0917/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(24 March 2000)

Subject: Qualified majority voting

Can the Council state on how many occasions each year for the last five years each Member State has been outvoted in the Council when a decision on a legislative proposal (directive, regulation, decision) has been taken by qualified majority voting?

(26 June 2000)

The Honourable Member will find below a summary of the abstentions and votes against cast by delegations on the adoption of legislative acts by the Council.

It should be noted that this information was compiled from the monthly summaries of the Council’s activities drawn up and published by the Council General Secretariat.

Abstentions:

B DK D EL E F IRL IT L NL A P FIN S UK 1996 1 0 4 001012212000 1997 1 1 2 013111012003 1998 3 1 7 272052104000 1999 0 0 1 020010101003 2000 (1) 100000010000000

(1) First two months. C 26 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Votes against:

B DK D EL E F IRL IT L NL A P FIN S UK 1996 5 2 15 243260 221147 1997 0 6 9 423261 222477 1998 4 7 11 2132801432032 1999 2 4 2 113182 411000 2000 (1) 01 0000000 000000

(1) First two month.

(2001/C 26 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0921/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Ad hoc working party on tax fraud

Could the Commission please state what meetings have been held in the last six months by the ad hoc working party on tax fraud established on the basis of a proposal by the Spanish Government, what conclusions have been drawn and when the final report of this working party is expected?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (12 May 2000)

The Commission takes part in the meetings of the ad hoc working party on tax fraud referred to by the Honourable Member and contributes actively to its work. As that working party has been set up under the aegis of the Council, and is chaired by the Council, the Commission feels that this question should be addressed to the Council.

(2001/C 26 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0924/00 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Council

(24 March 2000)

Subject: Stockholm Declaration on education about the Holocaust

What steps has the Council taken to act on the Stockholm Declaration on education about the Holocaust in the EU and the Member States?

(8 June 2000)

The Council attaches great importance to the role of education in promoting tolerance and respect for people, and by implication, drawing lessons from history This was exemplified by the Declaration of the Council and the representatives of the Member States of 16 December 1997 on respecting diversity and combating racism and xenophobia (1). Indeed, it is also important to raise awareness about these issues among young people in general outside the formal education context, as was acknowledged in the Declaration by the Council and the Representatives of the Member States of 24 November 1997 on the fight against racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism in the youth field (2). However, as far as teaching about 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/133

the holocaust is concerned, it should be pointed out that Article 149 TEC (education) clearly indicates that the European Community should fully respect ‘the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems’.

(1) OJ C 1, 3.1.1998, p. 1. (2) OJ C 368, 5.12.1997, p. 1.

(2001/C 26 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0932/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 March 2000)

Subject: Violations of the Treaty by the French and Belgian governments

The French and Belgian governments have recently drawn attention to themselves by making an increasing number of calls for compliance with the Treaties. This is in itself a praiseworthy initiative. However, these calls are not of a general nature but are at present directed exclusively against Austria. The basic values underlying European union though, should apply to all.

According to the official data currently available (1), during the period 1995-1998 a total of 724 sets of proceedings for violation of the Treaty were brought against France, resulting in 463 letters of formal notice, 206 reasoned opinions and 55 complaints to the Court of Justice. During the same period 589 sets of proceedings were brought against Belgium, resulting in 333 letters of formal notice, 192 reasoned opinions and 64 complaints to the Court of Justice. The Belgian and French governments thus not only lead the field as self-appointed champions of the Treaties, but are also champions at violating those Treaties. These two countries occupy an unchallenged position at the top of statistics.

By contrast, during the same period only 5 complaints were brought against Austria, compared with 64 against Belgium and 55 against France. Only 78 reasoned opinions were issued against Austria, compared with 206 against France and 192 against Belgium. And on only 321 occasions was the behaviour of Austria criticised in a letter of formal notice, as against 463 occasions for France and 333 for Belgium. France and Belgium thus clearly have much ground to make up in the European integration process compared to Austria, which has only been a Member State of the EU since 1995 and has a very good record of compliance with the Treaty.

Can the Council Presidency say what measures it intends to take to point out to France and Belgium that they should acknowledge their own deficiencies in the European integration process instead of criticising these deficiencies in others?

What does the Presidency intend to do to give publicly and praise to those countries which have a good record of implementing Community law?

(1) OJ C 354, 7.12.1999, p. 75.

(8 June 2000)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that it is not the task of the Council Presidency but of the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty are applied and that Member States honour their obligations under the Treaty (Articles 211 and 226 of the EC Treaty).

The Council would also point out that the Commission publishes a ‘single market scoreboard’ twice a year, giving details of the progress made by Member States in transposing Directives relating to the single market and the infringement proceedings brought by the Commission against Member States. Each scoreboard is discussed in the ‘Internal Market’ Council. C 26 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/166) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0953/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Supply of tuna loins to the European fish-canning industry

At the Fisheries Council meeting of 30 March 1999 the Commission undertook to initiate a study reviewing the supply of tuna loins to the Community market, which was published at the beginning of this year under the title ‘Tuna Loins Supply and Demand Study Evaluation of the Supply of Tuna Loins to the Community Market in the Short and Medium Term’. The study concluded that in order to help the Italian industry carry out its restructuring without prejudicing the other European Union countries, a quota of between 1 000 and 2 000 tonnes could be opened for third countries.

How could the Commission therefore propose, on 21 February 4000 tonnes at a customs duty of 6 % for the year 2000, if, as stated in the study, this will jeopardise the vast majority of fish-canning industries in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the study carried out by the Commission on supply of tuna loins to the Community market.

As mentioned in the reply to his Written Questions E-0756/00 to E-0761/00 (1), the Commission considers this study to show a limited deficit of a seasonal nature for this product.

Its proposal for the year 2000 was certainly for a higher quantity than advocated by the study, but at 6 % duty whereas the study advocated nil.

That quantity and duty level are moreover in line with the political agreement signed by the Council and the Commission on 17 December 1999.

The Council confirmed this line of action by unanimously adopting the Commission’s proposal.

(1) See page 104.

(2001/C 26 E/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0959/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Municipal hotel tax

The practice is on the increase of levying a tax on hotel guests, on the grounds that such guests use municipally-owned ‘facilities of general interest’, for whose upkeep all the inhabitants of a given urban community have to pay.

Visitors to a city which operates such a tax are thus asked to pay a surcharge on their hotel bill corresponding to their use of the municipally-owned facilities of which they have availed themselves while staying in a hotel in that city.

In view of the significant consequences which will arise if this tax comes to be levied customarily by local authorities throughout the Union, can the Commission state its position concerning this practice and whether it believes this tourist tax could become an indirect source of resources through VAT? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/135

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2000)

Since there is no Community legislation on this matter, Member States have sole responsibility for the introduction of municipal taxes levied on visitors to the municipality to help finance the additional municipally owned public facilities needed because of the influx of tourists.

However, such legislation must not include discriminatory measures that infringe the fundamental freedoms provided for in the EC Treaty for instance levying taxes only on foreign tourists or applying a higher rate to foreign tourists. Provided they do not include such discriminatory provisions, municipal taxes on visitors to the municipality are not incompatible with Community law.

(2001/C 26 E/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0966/00 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Health effects of mobile telephones

In several of its documents the Commission has stressed Europe’s leading position in the use of mobile telephones and has proposed strategies designed to maintain this position. Has the Commission ascertained by means of scientific research that the electromagnetic fields created in connection with the operation of such telephones have no negative health effects on the human brain and that they do not cause a predisposition to cancer?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

Under the 3rd and 4th Framework Programmes of Research and Development the Commission funded several projects investigating how electromagnetic radiation (radio frequency RF) affects health. The first was a COST action (Cost 244 in 1992, followed by Cost 244a in 1998) on the biomedical effects of electromagnetic radiation. This action is still under way. In addition, the Biomed 2 programme provided funding for two studies of the links between electromagnetic radiation and cancer.

The Measurement and Testing programme funded a project on the measurement of electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile telephones and relay stations and on the quantification of human exposure. The project’s findings will be useful for establishing measurement standards and evaluating the risk posed by mobile telephones and relay stations.

The Commission granted a total of around two million euros to these studies. None of the studies (covering potential thermal effects and cellular metabolic disturbance caused by the various types of electromagnetic field) produced any evidence of adverse effects on health, though further results are still needed in order to meet public concern.

Under the 5th Framework Programme, studies on the effects of electromagnetic radiation are specifically included in the work programme of the 4th key action (Environment and Health) of Theme 1 (Quality of life and management of living resources). Following the 1999 call for proposals, five proposals were selected, for total funding of around nine million euros. These projects have just got under way, and will be delivering results in three or four years.

The projects include a large-scale epidemiological study (Interphone) coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which will investigate whether the electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile telephones can be carcinogenic. The study will distinguish between the various emission levels of C 26 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

different types of mobile phone. The other projects are aiming to provide greater understanding of the biological mechanisms by which electromagnetic radiation might affect human health. One of them will also be examining the combined effect of electromagnetic radiation and chemical carcinogens.

(2001/C 26 E/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0973/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(30 March 2000)

Subject: Relations between the European Union and Iran

The election results in the recent parliamentary elections in Iran have demonstrated the strong desire of the Iranian electorate that Iran should emerge from the international isolation in which it has been for years. However, the European Union’s response to the changes taking place in Iran has so far been limited.

Will the Council say whether it intends to take advantage of current favourable circumstances to improve relations with Iran, thus supporting the opening which Iranian society is seeking with the West?

(26 June 2000)

The EU is encouraged by developments in Iran, including the results of the first round of the Parliamentary elections in February.

Following these elections, the European Union has recalled its long-standing interest in consolidating and expanding the Comprehensive Dialogue it leads with Iran and reiterated its willingness to promote the establishment of closer ties with the Iranian Government.

(2001/C 26 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0975/00 by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Savings to be made in Subsection B1 Agriculture of the 2001 budget and modification of the financial planning for 2000-2006

Numerous Commission proposals concerning savings in the 2001 budget for Subsection B1 Agriculture have recently been made public. Are these savings intended primarily to help achieve the funding required in the foreign policy area (reconstruction measures in Kosovo of the order of € 300 million a year)? Is the Commission also planning changes in relation to the financial framework in Agenda 2000 adopted by the European Council in Berlin?

What savings in financial resources would the Commission like to make, in particular through the following measures:

changes to the common organisations of the market (COM), inter alia for sugar, hops, rice, olives, flax and hemp;

new legislation, e.g. creation of a regulatory fund applicable to the pig sector;

reform of the Financial Regulation, inter alia by changing the allocation of the negative expenditure of Subsection B1-Agriculture; 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/137

decisions in the management committees, e.g. reduction of subsidies by modification of the quality requirements for cereals; fixing of prices for agricultural products?

Does the Commission intend not to adhere to the financial planning adopted by the Berlin European Council for the budget years 2000-2006 for Subsection B1-Agriculture and are the press reports, indicating that the Directorate General for the Budget considers that these are ‘in no way inviolable’, correct?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The Commission is proposing a reduction in the ceiling for subheading 1.a. of € 300 million in each of the years 2001 and 2002.

The latest estimates on expenditure under subheading 1.a. are for a non-utilised margin of € 400 million for 2001. These are based on current legislation and the proposals already submitted by the Commission. For 2002 the changes envisaged in the ‘sugar’ market organisation should yield a saving of the same amount.

(2001/C 26 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0987/00 by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission (22 March 2000)

Subject: List of provisions for which unanimity is still required (reference: annex to the Commission’s opinion of 26 January 2000 concerning the Intergovernmental Conference)

The co-rapporteur on the Intergovernmental Conference for the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs asks the Commission 1. to justify its proposal for the long list of provisions on which unanimous votes would continue to be taken, and especially Parts 2 (institutional decisions) and 4 (parallel internal and external decisions) and 2. to explain the arguments in relation to the fundamental question of how this proposal for the perpetuation of unanimity in many areas is to be reconciled with the concept of the ‘governance’ of a European Union of 28 or more Member States if each Member State is to continue to have a right of veto even where details are concerned.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

1. In its opinion of 26 January 2000 on the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) (1), the Commission proposes that qualified majority be the general rule for decision-making. It has identified five categories of provisions for which serious and lasting reasons warrant making an exception to the rule and maintaining unanimity. The second category is that of essential institutional decisions and decisions affecting the institutional balance, that is, important decisions relating to the organisation and functioning of the Institutions. The fourth category comprises provisions enabling the Community to take external action in areas where unanimity is maintained for internal action: this is the logic underlying parallelism, on which Article 300 of the EC Treaty is based. The Commission is prepared to examine in detail, together with the Honourable Member, the precise reasons for which the provisions given in Annex 1 to the opinion have been placed in these categories. However, it does not regard this as a long list.

2. The Commission recalls that the provisions listed in Annex 1 of the opinion (‘List of provisions on which unanimous votes would continue to be taken, by way of derogation from the principle of qualified- majority voting’) are essentially institutional provisions and that it has proposed that almost all the legal C 26 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

bases on which the Community takes action in the various fields falling within its jurisdiction should provide for decision-making by qualified majority in future. It regards its opinion as being very close to the report on Parliament’s proposals for the IGC, adopted by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (2), which proposes that unanimity in the Council be confined to decisions of a constitutional nature (cf. item25.3 of the motion for a resolution).

(1) Adapting the Institutions to make a success of enlargement COM(2000) 34 final. (2) Report A5-0086/2000 (Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen), adopted by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 24 March 2000.

(2001/C 26 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0988/00 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Waste water and small creameries

Small creameries in peripheral parts of the Union will have short term difficulties in adjusting production methods to satisfy requirements imposed under Community regulations and directives regulating waste water. The problem of converting surplus whey into reusable protein is technically solvable but will take time to yield a commercially viable process useable by small-scale producers. There will be quite widespread damage to SMEs and farms and diminution of employment opportunities in peripheral areas if creameries are forced to close. This will almost certainly happen if they have to meet new standards immediately.

Will the Commission look favourably upon requests to defer full operation of the law in cases where remoteness guarantees minimum ecological damage arising from such delay, and where production will become prohibitively expensive if immediate implementation is demanded?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

At Community level, the discharge of waste water produced by the milk-processing industry is governed by Directive 91/271/EEC on urban waste water treatment (1).

Article 13 of the Directive, adopted in 1991, provides that by 31 December 2000 biodegradable industrial waste water from plants in certain industrial sectors, including the milk-processing industry, which does not enter urban waste water treatment plants before discharge into receiving waters, must meet conditions established by the competent authority or appropriate body in the Member State. This requirement concerns discharges from plants representing biodegradable organic pollution of 4 000 p. e. or more (p. e. = population equivalent, a unit of measurement corresponding to the average organic pollution discharged per person each day into domestic waste water).

The requirements for the discharge of such waste water had to be set by the competent authority or appropriate body by 31 December 1993 at the latest. Those in charge of the plants concerned will therefore have had seven years to comply with the requirements. The Directive does not provide for any possibility of extending the deadline.

There is no Community legislation governing discharges from industrial plants in the sectors covered by the Directive which produce pollution of less than 4 000 p. e. The proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, presented by the Commission on 15 April 1997 (2), provides for the possibility of making discharges subject to prior authorisation in cases where they are likely to have an adverse effect on the receiving waters.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991. (2) OJ C 184, 17.6.1997. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/139

(2001/C 26 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0992/00 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: ’Pôles de développement rural’ (PPDR) (DG VIII development project in Cameroon)

With reference to the ‘Pôles de développement rural’ project, can the Commission say:

1. whether the project will be continued?

2. If so, will its aims and guidelines be altered?

On 5 May 1999 the experts commissioned to assess the project (GOPA Consultants, Bad Homburg) submitted a final study suggesting various improvements. Their proposals call for the project to revert unequivocally to its original prime task of changing modes of behaviour with a view to boosting the self- management abilities of the local population. The study also lists measures and results that might help to attain the project’s objective, including the point that the potential uptake by recipients and their skills should be taken more largely into account. In addition, it recommends that selected participants be assisted and bolstered.

Could the Commission express a view on the experts’ proposals for improvement and say:

what generally happens to assessment reports, who has access to the reports, and how they can be obtained;

what has been done with the PPDR report in particular;

whether the improvements proposed will be taken into consideration when the project is relaunched?

If the answer to the previous question is yes, how does the Commission intend to organise cooperation with local NGOs?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

The rural development zones project (PPDR) was launched in 1991 in the Bafut area and in late 1992 in the Saa, Ntui and Sangmélina areas, under a financing agreement worth EUR 10.3 million under the Sixth European Development Fund (EDF). The overall approach emphasises capacity-building enabling the communities concerned to manage their own development and improve their living standards and environment. In the three zones of Saa, Ntui and Sangmélina, prior to the second, four-year phase being programmed there was an intermediate phase in the period 1997/1998, in which the viability and management of agricultural projects and socio-economic infrastructure was stressed.

The Commission and the EDF National Authorising Officer agreed on a mid-term evaluation in 1995 and an evaluation at the end of the 1997/1998 intermediate phase in November 1998. The evaluations highlighted the positive popular impact of the project, the participative ethos of which had enabled the beneficiaries to take charge of their own micro-projects. However, it was found that additional work was necessary to achieve a sufficient level of participation and to build up the community’s ownership capacity.

On the basis of evaluations by independent consultancies, emphasis was placed on the viability and management of agricultural projects and socio-economic infrastructure. Project activities have been planned and followed up with reference to two sub-programmes: continuation and new operations. The new programme should start in the first half of 2000.

Evaluation reports financed by the EDF, and not by the Community’s own resources, belong to the Government receiving the financing. The Commission is nonetheless making evaluations available by publishing the final versions on the Europa web site of the Common Service for External Relations (SCR) (http://europa.eu.int/comm/scr/evaluation/index.htm). The report on the PPDR is still provisional and for C 26 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

the moment it is available on paper from the Commission Delegation in Yaoundé, from the relevant Commission department in Brussels and from the EDF National Authorising Officer in Yaoundé. The improvements proposed by GOPA Consultants were taken into account in the new draft of the programme, insofar as they were considered relevant and suited to the specific context and financing of the new phase of the project.

Cooperation with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is governed by Articles 252 to 257 (micro- projects) and Articles 251a to 251e (decentralised cooperation) of the Lomé Convention, which lays down the objective and arrangements for its implementation. The Commission has also published a note on support for decentralised cooperation, which applies to all decentralised cooperation programmes.

(2001/C 26 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0993/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(30 March 2000)

Subject: Procedures for implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)

The recent adoption by the European Parliament of the Swoboda Report (1) on the negotiation of a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia establishes a suitable framework guaranteeing the security and development of the country so as to allow FYROM gradually to come into the European fold.

Will the Council say what steps it intends to take next to implement in the near future all the measures announced and promised in the Swoboda report for FYROM?

(1) Verbatim Report of Proceedings of 17 February 2000, p. 81.

(26 June 2000)

The Stabilisation and Association process is the centrepiece of the European Union’s policy in the Balkans. The overall objective of the Union is the fullest possible integration of the countries in the Region into the political and economic mainstream of Europe.

The Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) is a new type of bilateral Agreement which the European Union offers to the countries of the Region, in return for compliance with certain political and economic conditions.

A negotiating directive for an SAA with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was adopted by the Council on 24 January 2000. This was the first negotiating directive for an Agreement of this kind in Region and represents a significant step forward in the development of EU’s Stabilisation and Association process.

Negotiations under the responsibility of the European Commission have opened in March, and the two sides have expressed their wish to aim at finishing negotiations by the end of the year. The Council is confident that the European Commission is fully aware of the recommendations in the Report by Mr Swoboda. Upon completion of negotiations, the signature and conclusion of the Agreement will take place according to the procedures foreseen by the relevant provisions of the Treaties. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/141

(2001/C 26 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0994/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Procedures for implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)

Will the Commission say what steps it intends to take next to implement in the near future all the measures announced and promised in the Swoboda report for FYROM?

(1) Verbatim Report of Proceedings of 17 February 2000, p. 81.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2000)

The Commission has taken the necessary measures to ensure that Mr Swoboda’s report on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is swiftly followed up.

Firstly, negotiations were quickly started. Following the adoption of the negotiating directives by the Council (General Affairs) on 24 January 2000, the Commission organised the first session of formal negotiations (attended by delegations from the Member States) on 5 April 2000 in Brussels. A second session should take place by the end of June. At the same time, technical work meetings between the Commission and the relevant FYROM ministries are being held. In line with Parliament’s recommendation, the text drafted by the Commission contains a series of measures on regional cooperation. The Stabilisa- tion and Association Agreement with FYROM will contain a future developments clause which will reflect the EU’s position on integrating the countries of the Western Balkans into its structures, as stated at the Cologne and Lisbon European Councils.

Furthermore, Community technical assistance to FYROM will also take into account the priorities set out in the context of the stabilisation and association process, for example the approximation of legislation and cooperation on justice and home affairs. Community technical assistance programming for the 2000 budget year already incorporates these new priorities, which will also be reflected in the new programme to succeed Phare in the western Balkans. In addition, FYROM benefits greatly from the European initiative on democracy and human rights (Chapter B7-70) which includes several projects concerning FYROM, notably on the development of civil society, the media, and enhancing the rights of national minorities.

Lastly, in line with Parliament’s request, the Commission upgraded its representation in Skopje to the status of a delegation.

(2001/C 26 E/176) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0997/00 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(30 March 2000)

Subject: International trade victims of the banana war

Small firms in the Union engaged in producing bath produces and other toiletries remain under heavy burdens resulting from delay in concluding the banana war and getting US punitive rates of import duty abolished. Will the Council request the Commission to take urgent steps to bring this unsatisfactory situation to an end? C 26 E/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(8 June 2000)

The Council shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the difficulties resulting from the trade sanctions imposed by the US on the industry of the EU. Following the condemnation of certain aspects of the EU banana regime by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in April 1999, the USA was given authorisation to suspend concessions to the value of $191.4 million, concerning a wide range of EU products. Since then, the Commission has conducted intensive contacts with interested parties with a view to putting forward a proposal, which would be generally accepted as resolving the dispute.

In absence of a solution acceptable to all parties, the Commission has submitted to the Council in November 1999 a proposal amending the EC banana regime. The proposal, on which the European Parliament has been invited to give its opinion, is currently under examination within the Council. This document states that the discussions of the Commission with interested parties would continue during the period in which the Council and the Parliament are examining the proposal. By the time the Council is ready to take a decision, that is to say by the time Parliament expresses its opinion, the Commission will make a report on the outcome of the discussions with the interested parties. Since November 1999, the Commission reported to the Council at various occasions on the state of play concerning these discussions. At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the Council (Agriculture) agreed to resume its examination of the dossier when the Commission submits its report on the results of the negotiations with the third countries concerned.

(2001/C 26 E/177) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1009/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Vocational training or welfare

The Vienna Summit of 11 and 12 December 1998 rejected both Italy’s employment plan, which was deemed to be ‘welfare-oriented and ineffectual’, and its programme for vocational training, which was dismissed as ‘non-existent’.

1. Did the European funds allocated to vocational training during 1999 do anything to change this assessment or were they used according to the usual criteria, which were so harshly criticised?

2. Is it true, as maintained by a survey in an Italian weekly publication, that young people receive little in the way of education and that only teachers and bureaucrats with the right connections are guaranteed jobs and salaries?

3. Is it true that decisions on courses are taken not on the basis of labour market requirements but in the light of the funds available?

4. Is there an effective control system capable of examining whether courses funded by the Union have met their stated aims and analysing the cost-benefit ratio?

5. Will the Commission provide information on the funds provided to Italy for training in 1998 and 1999, together with the amounts scheduled for 2000, broken down by region?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2000)

The Presidency conclusions of the Vienna European Council of 11/12 December 1998 dealt with the national action plans (NAPs) in point 31 (1). These are addressed to all the Member States and not to Italy in particular. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/143

The document setting out the Commission’s and the Council’s judgement on the Italian NAP is the Joint employment report (JER) for 1998, which was adopted in the wake of the Vienna European Council (2). Reference to the programme for vocational training may be found on the pages dedicated to Italy (pp.86-89 of the JER for 1998) the phrase ‘non-existant’ is not used.

1. The European social fund (ESF) has been allocated for the period 1994-1999, not just for 1999. Some changes have been made to the programming mechanisms to bring the ESF in line with the European employment strategy.

2. Young people are the most successful target group for ESF interventions. This means that the expenditure and the coverage rate are very high.

3. Decisions on courses are taken by the responsible authorities, which are the region and the various ministries involved in the management. Decisions on the allocation of funds to various projects are usually based on the needs of the labour market.

4. Funds allocated from the ESF are the subject of control systems in the Member States and in the Commission. Every intervention is the subject of an ex-ante visa from the Commission and by ex-post on- the-spot controls made by the Court of auditors and by the Commission. Controls carried out by the Member State authorities are carried out in the framework of its national legislation. The Commission also carries out evaluations of the interventions in partnership with the Member States. These evaluations involve cost and benefit analysis and show to what extent targets have been reached.

5. A decision on the funds allocation for the period 2000-2006 is foreseen in the first half of the year. The Community resources devoted to objective 3 amount to € 3 888 million. As far as objective 1 is concerned, the total amount of structural funds devoted to the southern regions amounts to € 22 122 million. For information on the previous programming period, 1994-1999, a useful tool is the Europa website containing all the necessary information on the interventions in Italy (3).

(1) Document 00300/1/98. (2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/empl&esf/empl99/jer98_en.pdf. (3) http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg05/esf/en/public/leafs/it-it.htm.

(2001/C 26 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1013/00 by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(6 April 2000)

Subject: Fatalities and injuries at the European Union’s external borders in 1997-1999

According to investigations by the non-governmental organisation UNITED for Intercultural Action, nine hundred people died while attempting, in some cases illegally, to enter the European Union between 1 January 1997 and the end of 1999. Comparable figures were provided by other non-governmental organisations (Antirassistische Initiative, Forschungsgesellschaft Flucht und Migration), although it should be noted that they do not claim to be comprehensive.

In view of the fact that the number of fatalities has risen since the beginning of the 1990s and in the knowledge that most EU Member States are increasing their (financial and technical) efforts to strengthen protection at the relevant borders,

the Council is asked:

1. According to the Council’s information, from 1997 to 1999, how many people were found dead at the land borders, coasts, ports and airports and in the border regions of the EU Member States, how many inquests were opened on them and what were the findings of these inquests (please give details)?

2. According to the Council’s information, from 1997 to 1999, how many people were picked up with physical injuries (frostbite, hypothermia, suffering from hunger or thirst) sustained during their, in some cases illegal, border crossing (please give details)? C 26 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

3. According to the Council’s information, from 1997 to 1999, how many people were injured in the process of their, in some cases illegal, border crossing because of the use of direct force or physical violence and how many inquiries or disciplinary proceedings were opened as a result and what was the outcome in each case (please give details)?

4. According to the Council’s information, from 1997 to 1999, how many people died during their attempt (in some cases illegal) to enter the European Union (lack of oxygen, hunger, thirst, cold, excessive heat during transport)?

(8 June 2000)

The Council has no statistics enabling it to answer the Honourable Member’s questions.

(2001/C 26 E/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1020/00 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Five cases of torture and violation of human rights in Turkey

In the past week, several newspapers, non-governmental organisations and sources from the International Red Cross and the UN have brought to Parliament’s attention the serious case of five Turkish professionals, engineers and entrepreneurs Halil Muftuoglu, Emre Nil, Ferhat Terkoglu, Hasan Basri Guner and Timur Ayan who, after prolonged and excruciating torture, were forced to sign false confessions to crimes against the state. According to the victims’ declarations and evidence gathered from several sources, but not reported by the Turkish press, the torture comprised electric shocks to the testicles, jets of freezing water and beatings with clubs wrapped in towels to avoid bruising. The torture was inflicted by officers and officials of the Istanbul directorate for organised crime, a body which is part of the Turkish government’s criminal investigation department. All five are now being detained in Bayrampasa prison while awaiting trial.

1. Does the Commission not consider that these continuing grave violations of human rights provide a startling contradiction to the statements made by the Prime Minister, Mr Ecevit, and the entire Turkish government to the effect that the reform of the judicial system, which should facilitate Turkey’s accession to the EU, is already under way?

2. Does the President of the Commission, Mr Romano Prodi, not consider that the essentially positive opinion expressed by the Commissioner for enlargement, Mr Verheugen, after his recent visit to Istanbul, on the progress achieved by Turkey in this regard is largely unjustifiable, or at the very least, premature?

3. Should the Commission not ask the Turkish government to provide immediate explanations for the inhuman treatment of the five aforementioned prisoners before starting negotiations on the accession of Turkey to the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

The Commission has been concerned about certain events relating to the human rights situation in Turkey that have occurred since the Helsinki European Council. On each occasion it has taken a firm stance.

In general, it is asking the Turkish Government to show a clearer commitment to democratisation. This was the position taken by the Member of the Commission responsible for enlargement on his most recent visit to Turkey on 9 and 10 March 2000. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/145

The case raised by the Honourable Member is indeed now before the Turkish courts. The Commission has itself received a large number of letters about the case and has answered that it is taking the allegations very seriously and will be asking the Turkish authorities for an explanation.

It is true that the foundation with which the five people referred to by the Honourable Member are associated raises certain questions, given the anti-Semitic views expressed and published on its Internet site, but if the reports of how they have been treated turn out to be correct, it is completely unacceptable.

(2001/C 26 E/180) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1025/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council

(28 March 2000)

Subject: Council’s contradictory attitude to ending the boycott on Austria

At question time to the Council at the Strasbourg part-session, Mr Seixas de Costa, speaking on behalf of the Council, replied to my question about the possibility of the Member States’ restoring diplomatic relations with Austria. According to Mr Seixas da Costa it is quite possible for individual Member States, irrespective of the attitude of the other Member States, to depart from the common position and to restore diplomatic relations, and return to normal political cooperation with Austria.

Mr Antonio Guterres, speaking in Paris, replied to a question from the press on the same subject as follows: ‘We adopted a common position and only these fourteen countries can change it one day if there are conditions of change in Austria justifying such a measure’ (Bulletin Quotidien Europe No 7680, Monday-Tuesday. 20-21 March 2000). According to Mr Guterres, then, a change to the common position requires a joint decision by all 14 countries to end the boycott which began on 31 January 2000.

On the other hand Mr Guterres has also commented on the plans whereby Mr Schüssel, the Chancellor of Austria, would speak to the EU Member States’ leaders at a dinner held in connection with the Lisbon summit. According to him Portugal plans that Mr Schüssel should be given the opportunity to speak, but that afterwards there would be no further discussion of the subject and Mr Guterres would himself reply to Mr Schüssel on behalf of all the EU states. This too suggests that Mr Guterres considers himself able to act as spokesman on behalf of all the 14 Member States, even though representatives of Portugal had earlier given us to understand that the sanctions could be ended on a bilateral basis.

I would therefore respectfully ask the Council how these contradictory statements should be interpreted. Is the 14 Member States’ decision to freeze high-level relations with Austria bilateral in nature, a matter to be agreed between each state and Austria individually, or is it something else, a ‘Council-minus-one’ decision? Are the Member States not entitled to take an independent decision on the boycott? Does the EU determine not only the Member States’ internal government decisions but also their foreign policy relations with one another and their right to make their own diplomatic contacts?

(8 June 2000)

The declaration to which the Honourable Member refers was issued by the Prime Minister of Portugal on behalf of the governments of 14 Member States. It is not for the Council either to take a view on this declaration, or to elaborate on it. The Council has not therefore taken a position on any of the issues raised in the Honourable Member’s question. C 26 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/181) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1026/00 by Luís Queiró (UEN) to the Council

(28 March 2000)

Subject: Angola

The most recent report by the US Department of State on human rights, published on 25 February 2000, enumerates, in detail, numerous cases of human rights abuses in Angola, including violations of personal integrity and individual freedom (executions without trial, torture and other abusive treatment, arbitrary arrest, violations of privacy and property rights), violations of civil liberties (of the freedoms of expression and association and the rights of religions and other movements), non-respect of political rights and discrimination of various kinds (against women, children and persons with disabilities). In addition, two reports have been published by ‘Global Witness’. Of these, the first is on UNITA and the second (more recent) focuses on the Government of the People’s Republic of Angola. In both reports it is claimed that the diamond trade and the oil-exporting business are serving to finance the war effort, and that corruption exist at the highest level of the national authorities.

In view of the above, can the Council state whether it intends to maintain its one-dimensional position on the situation in Angola; whether, in particular, it still considers Angola to be a state based on the rule of law where human rights are respected; whether it still believes that the peace process based on the Lusaka protocol is being applied (and that only one of the parties is in breach of this protocol); and whether it remains convinced that there can be a military solution to the conflict, or whether, on the contrary, it believes there is an urgent need for an overall revision of the EU’s position on the situation in Angola, in the light of the revelations of the above-mentioned recent reports and considering that, notably, simultaneous withdrawal by the contending parties is the first condition if the people of Angola are to be allowed to live in peace, to acquire their freedom, to create a democratic system and, in the last analysis, to live in conditions which are compatible with the universal values of human dignity?

(8 June 2000)

Having constantly kept a close watch on developments in the situation in Angola, the Council is aware of the contents of the reports referred to by the Honourable Member.

In the declaration issued by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union regarding Angola on 17 January 2000, the European Union stated its position both on the military situation and on political, economic and social developments in the country. In that declaration the Union said it remained convinced of the need for a political solution to bring a lasting peace to the country, allowing stability and progress for the Angolan people.

The European Union believes that UNITA, under the leadership of Jonas Savimbi, by failing to comply with key provisions of the Lusaka Protocol, bears the prime responsibility for the war in Angola. By acting in persistent defiance of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, Dr Savimbi has deliberately chosen the path of conflict instead of fulfilling his undertakings, a course of action which raises legitimate doubts as to whether he really intends to work towards national reconciliation in Angola.

Having said that, the Council certainly urges the Angolan Government to continue implementing economic and financial reforms and combating corruption and poverty, so as to create the appropriate political, social and economic environment for democracy and the rule of law to flourish in Angola. The Government has a special responsibility to bear here for the promotion of human rights, including in areas previously under UNITA’s control, of democratic principles and of good governance and for the consolidation of a free civil society. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/147

(2001/C 26 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1028/00 by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Breach of Articles 2(4) and 6(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam

The Austrian coalition Government has been the target of intense criticism since taking office last February. In a clear bid to underline EU public opinion, thousands of Europeans marched through the streets of Vienna, encouraged by global backing from all the EU institutions.

On 11 March 2000 at the Spanish-French border that separates the Basque people, Paris sent police forces to hinder the passage of Basque citizens going to a popular march in the northern town of Bayonne. The goal of this gathering was to denounce the dispersal of Basque political prisoners all over France and Spain and the violation of their rights and those of their relatives. The French Government, with full agreement from Madrid, applied Article 2 of the Schengen Convention that allows borders to be closed on an exceptional basis. Paradoxically, we note that, while the Vienna march was encouraged, that of Bayonne was forbidden.

1. Can the EU Member States inform the European citizens as to which human rights they are allowed to defend?

2. Can the Schengen provisions, as applied by the French Government totally contradict fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the very principle of free movement of persons inside the EU?

3. Can the Basques live in an EU without their internal iron curtain?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

Article 2(2) of the Schengen Convention enables Member States, provided they comply with certain procedures laid down by the Schengen acquis, to re-introduce checks on persons at internal borders for a limited period where public policy or national security so require. Under current Community law on the free movement of citizens of the Union, such checks may be imposed on grounds of public policy or public security. (1)

The exercise of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly may, under Article 10(2) and Article 11(2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, be subject to certain restrictions provided for by law and taking the form of measures necessary on grounds of national security or public policy in a democratic society.

(1) See Article 39(3), Article 46(1) and Article 55 of the EC Treaty, together with Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (OJ 56, 4.4.1964).

(2001/C 26 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1037/00 by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Intellectual property rights and human genetic material

The difficult ethical and legal issues raised by the recent granting by the EPO (European Patent Office) of a patent for human genetic material, have once again focused attention on the rules that currently govern the sensitive area of biotechnology. C 26 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Can the Commission say whether it considers that steps should be taken to ensure that the patent granted by the EPO to the Australian firm Stem Cell Sciences is withdrawn?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (5 June 2000)

The Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal market stated to Parliament, in the course of a debate on 31 March 2000, that the Commission is aware of, and indeed shares, the concerns expressed about the granting of patent EP695351 to the University of Edinburgh for an invention in the area of stem cell technology made by that institution in collaboration with Stem Cell Sciences. He informed the Parliament that he has written to the European Patent Office requesting that the Office takes whatever action it considers necessary to correct the error that resulted in this patent being granted in its current form. In response, the European Patent Office agreed to establish an opposition division immediately to consider the oppositions that have already been filed against this patent. This opposition division, which was duly established on 29 March 2000, will issue a preliminary ruling as soon as possible. This could lead to the patent being either revoked, upheld in its present form or upheld in an amended form. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation and, should the preliminary ruling not prove to be acceptable, will consider further action including formally opposing this patent itself.

Furthermore, following the Parliament resolution of 30 March 2000, the European group on ethics in sciences and new technologies is preparing an opinion on the ethical aspects of human embryonic stem cell research that will be published this summer.

(2001/C 26 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1054/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council (6 April 2000)

Subject: Cyprus

Could the Council confirm or deny reports that Cypriot citizens will be denied their right to freedom of movement when Cyprus joins the EU unless Turkey joins simultaneously?

In the House of Commons on 15 February 2000 (Hansard Column 781), the Rt Hon Robin Cook MP, Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, made the following announcement in relation to the accession of Cyprus to the EU:

‘Freedom of movement between the Republic of Cyprus and the occupied northern sector would apply only if Turkey simultaneously joined the EU’.

Does this statement reflect the views of the Council? Could the Council state whether any citizens of the Republic of Cyprus will be denied their right to freedom of movement when Cyprus joins the EU?

If the answer to this question is yes, could the Council explain why Cypriot citizens are to be denied (on an indefinite basis) the basic rights afforded by the Treaties? Could the Council justify the decision to discriminate against Cypriot citizens in this way?

Could the Council explain why the decisions on the accession of Cyprus are being linked to EU relations with a foreign country which maintains an illegal occupation force in the Republic of Cyprus, contrary to the stated position of the UN, the European Parliament, the European Council and the overwhelming majority of the international community?

Reply (8 June 2000)

The attention of the Honourable Parliamentarian is drawn to the Council’s reply to Written Question E-711/00 submitted by Mr. Ioannis Marinos on the same issue. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/149

(2001/C 26 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1056/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(6 April 2000)

Subject: Cyprus

Accession negotiations with Cyprus pose special challenges to the EU.

What is the total amount of finance which has been made available to date so as to aid Cypriot accession? What commitments have been made as to future funding?

What, if any, funds have been made available for projects designed to foster reconciliation between the two communities in Cyprus?

If such funds have been made available, can the Council give details of the nature and number of such reconciliation projects?

UN Resolution 1283, adopted in 1999, states that links and contacts between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities remain very limited, largely because of the restrictions imposed by the occupying Turkish regime (‘the Denktash regime’). Have the Council or its agents or employees experienced any difficulties in implementing projects designed to foster reconciliation between the two Cypriot communities?

If so, could the Council give details of these difficulties and state whether they have still to be resolved? In particular, could it state what role the Denktash regime played in blocking or otherwise hindering such reconciliation projects?

Is the Council aware of any non-EU initiatives aimed at reconciliation between the two Cypriot communities which have been blocked or in any way hindered by the Denktash regime?

(8 June 2000)

Council Regulation 555/2000 on the implementation of operations in the framework of the pre-accession strategy for the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta took over from the 4th Financial Protocols with both countries and is intended to support cooperation projects and operations to prepare them for accession in line with the priorities identified in their respective Accession Partnerships. In the specific case of Cyprus, operations may also be financed which contribute to the reconciliation of the two Cypriot communities.

While the financial reference amount for the period 2000 2004 for Cyprus and Malta together has been fixed in the above-mentioned Regulation at € 95 million, the annual appropriations for each country will be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial perspective.

As for bicommunal projects in Cyprus, the Council attaches importance to promoting reconciliation projects between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities and will do everything to facilitate them. The Union is hopeful that the proximity talks launched by the UN Secretary-General in New York in December 1999 will allow for a rapprochement of both communities and thus further the reconciliation process.

The Commission is now studying bicommunal projects in Cyprus for financing under the above- mentioned Regulation. This work is currently in the pre-programming phase. Of the € 9 million already committed for 2000, € 6 million will be for projects and operations within the pre-accession strategy for Cyprus and € 3 million will be reserved for bicommunal projects. C 26 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1062/00 by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Tax on the entry of yachts and powerboats into Greek waters

Is the Commission aware that since 14 January 2000 yachts and powerboats which are not permanently based in Greek harbours are subject to a tax on entry, in addition to the normal harbour duty?

Under the provisions of Article 11 of Greek law 2743/1999 the port authority of Chios, for example, imposes a tax of Drs 2 000 per metre on yachts and powerboats of over seven metres in length when the vessel enters a Greek port for the first time. This tax is valid for 30 days. If the vessel leaves Greek waters before the expiry of the 30 day period and then re-enters a Greek port, a tax of Drs 15 000 (!) per metre is due. Violations of this law are punishable by fines of between Drs 200 000 and Drs 5 million.

Does the Commission agree that these charges are incompatible with freedom of movement in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

The Commission has not yet been fully informed on this matter or been able to check its information thoroughly, since Greece has not yet been invited to submit its comments.

With these reservations, the tax certainly seems to be one with an effect equivalent to that of an import duty, contrary to Articles 23 and 25 (ex-Articles 9 and 12) of the EC Treaty.

The chargeable event does seem to be the entry into Greek waters of a recreational craft longer than 7 metres and not permanently resident in Greece, and so the charge would appear to be a pecuniary levy unilaterally imposed on Community goods (in this instance pleasure boats) because they cross the border. If this is the case it corresponds to the definition of a charge equivalent in effect to an import duty.

Nor does it seem to fall within any of the three categories of exceptions whereby such charges may be treated as not having equivalent effect to import duties (part of a general system of internal charges; payment for a specific service in fact provided individually to the person liable for the charge of an amount proportionate to that service; charge levied because of inspections carried out to fulfil obligations imposed by Community law).

Since it is doubtful that these entry charges are compatible with Community law, the Commission will be contacting Greece to clarify the situation and obtain information on all the points raised by the Honourable Member. Should it prove necessary, it will certainly institute proceedings under the procedure provided for in Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(2001/C 26 E/187) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1069/00 by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Council

(6 April 2000)

Subject: Breach of Articles 2(4) and 6(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam

The Austrian coalition government has been the target of intense criticism since taking office last February. In a clear bid to underline EU public opinion, thousands of Europeans marched through the streets of Vienna, encouraged by the global backing of all the EU institutions. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/151

On 11 March 2000, at the Spanish-French border that separates Basque people, Paris sent police forces to hinder the passage of Basque citizens going to a popular march in the northern town of Bayonne. The goal of this gathering was to denounce the dispersal of Basque political prisoners all over France and Spain and the violation of their rights and those of their relatives. The French Government, with full agreement from Madrid, put into force Article 2 of the Schengen Convention that exceptionally allows border close downs. Paradoxically, we witness that, while the Vienna march was encouraged, that of Bayonne was forbidden.

1. Can the EU Member States tell European citizens which human rights they are allowed to defend?

2. Can the Schengen provisions, as used by the French Government, thoroughly revoke fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the very principle of free movement of persons inside the EU?

3. Can the Basques live in an EU without their internal iron curtain?

(8 June 2000)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Schengen Convention ‘if public policy or national security require immediate action’ a Member State may temporarily reinstate checks at its borders and ‘at the earliest opportunity shall inform’ the other Member States.

The free movement of persons established by the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) and the exercise of the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) may therefore be restricted when the Member States exercise their responsibilities under such circumstances (see Article 64(1) of the TEC and Articles 10(2) and 11(2) of the ECHR).

Under such circumstances and in accordance with the decision SCH/Com-ex (95) 20 rev. 2 of 20 December 1995 of the Executive Committee set up by the Schengen Convention, which has been integrated into the framework of the European Union, the French Government notified the Council of its decision to reinstate temporarily, that is on 11 March 2000, checks on persons at the Franco-Spanish land border for reasons of public policy. The Council acknowledged that notification.

Neither the Council nor the Commission, as guardian of the TEC, have seen any reason to question the French Government’s decision.

In this context, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in any event, responsibility for maintaining law and order on the territory of the Member States of the European Union falls within the exclusive competence of the authorities of each Member State. The Council is not authorised to take a position on a matter which does not fall within the scope of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties.

(2001/C 26 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1071/00 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Effectiveness of OLAF in combating ESF fraud in Catalonia

In recent years there have been repeated accusations of suspected fraud and irregularities in the management of the European Social Fund (ESF) in Catalonia, Spain. According to some sources, questionable activities undertaken in the 1990s could account for close to EUR 100 million. In the answers it provided to written questions on these matters during the last parliamentary term, the Commission stated that it was unable to report on the results of UCLAF activities, since they were sub judice. C 26 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Reports of the misappropriation of € 9 million of Community funds, primarily from the ESF, by the Catalan authorities have resurfaced in the Spanish media in recent days. Some of those already implicated in previous cases are said to have been involved.

The Commission has failed to give details of the outcome of the investigations and activities conducted by UCLAF or by its successor, OLAF, in spite of the ample time it has had in which to do so, the action taken by the Spanish police, and the fact that the courts have ordered international letters rogatory.

Can the Commission say what conclusions or results, if any, have emerged from UCLAF or OLAF activities? Does it believe that OLAF’s work on these cases can be described as ‘effective’? What shortcomings as regards legislation or funding are preventing OLAF from fulfilling its remit promptly?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2000)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission’s answer to his Written Question P-258/99 (1), in which it stated that the Task Force for Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF) had offered to cooperate with the Spanish judicial authorities.

Since then, the Commission has been in regular contact with the Spanish authorities, both at central government level (UAFSE the unit responsible for administering the ESF) and in Catalonia (Directorate- General for Employment), while taking on board reports appearing in the press. The information received by the Commission through these channels has proved insufficient or even incomplete. Nevertheless, the Commission is still in contact with the above-mentioned authorities.

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (2) has informed the Commission that, having received no reports under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field (3), it recently reminded the Spanish authorities of the Member States’ obligation to report all fraud cases, including, where appropriate, new allegations appearing in the press.

OLAF has also informed the Commission that the Spanish authorities have not requested its assistance. Under Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities’ financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (4), referred to in the new legislation on the establishment of OLAF, the Commission must take account of the inspections in progress or already carried out by the Member State, on the basis of its legislation, in respect of the same facts with regard to the economic operators concerned.

(1) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999. (2) OLAF succeeded the Task Force for Coordination of Fraud Prevention on 1 June 1999. See the legislation published in OJ L 136, 31.5.1999. (3) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994. (4) OJ L 292, 15.11.1996.

(2001/C 26 E/189) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1073/00 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Euratom loans to the applicant countries

Loans by Euratom to the applicant countries are currently made solely on the basis of improving the safety of their old Soviet-era nuclear power plants, pending their eventual closure. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/153

In a number of applicant countries, however, notably Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia, such a restrictive policy does not take any account of political reality. For these governments, the complete closure of their nuclear power plants raises extremely difficult economic and social issues.

In light of these difficulties, the best way to reconcile social and economic concerns with improved nuclear safety might be to replace old Soviet-design reactors with modern western-designed reactors, incorporating the latest safety technology.

Will the Commission therefore consider widening the criteria for Euratom loans to take account of political reality in the applicant countries and allow the financing of new western-designed reactors?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2000)

Council Decision 94/179/Euratom of 21 March 1994 amending Decision 77/270/Euratom, to authorise the Commission to contract Euratom borrowings in order to contribute to the financing required for improving the degree of safety and efficiency of nuclear power stations in certain non-member countries (1) authorises the Commission, within the ceiling set by the Council (currently EUR 4 000m), to contract borrowings in the form of loans for the financing of projects designed solely to improve the safety and efficiency of nuclear power stations in non-member eligible countries, including the applicant countries which produce nuclear electricity.

This Decision also allows the financing of new investment projects, but only where these are located in the Community.

The Decision is based primarily on Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty, which provides that the Council shall act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission after consulting the European Parliament.

The political circumstances would appear not to be conducive to establishing unanimous agreement on extending the eligibility of Euratom loans to new reactors to be built in applicant countries. The Commission will nonetheless analyse the conditions to be met before submitting a proposal along the lines proposed by the Honourable Member.

As far as priorities are concerned, the Commission takes the view that the first problem regarding investment in applicant countries concerns the decommissioning of obsolete (non-modernisable) nuclear installations, as negotiated by the Commission, and nuclear safety upgrading of installations having to remain temporarily in operation. On 18 April 2000, for example, the Commission decided to issue a Euratom loan for the modernisation of units 5 and 6 of the Kozloduy nuclear power station in Bulgaria. However, Euratom loans as such will not be sufficient to modernise installations that have to remain in operation. Applications will need to be made for funding available under the PHARE Programme and to the organisation of donors’ conferences (as in the case of the decommissioning of the Ignalina facility in Lithuania).

(1) OJ L 84, 29.3.1994.

(2001/C 26 E/190) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1077/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Terms and conditions to which several Italian credit institutions subject their current account- holders

Italian banks normally pay an annual interest rate of between 0,05 % and 1 % to their current account- holders, whilst demanding figures of around, or even above, 10-12 % when granting loans (credit lines). C 26 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Is this compatible with Community legislation?

Will the Commission take action to prevent the absurd and short-sighted attitude of most Italian credit institutions, which unjustly appropriate substantial amounts from private individuals, businesses and public and private bodies?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

Community legislation does not contain provisions aimed at regulating the interest that credit institutions apply to their customers concerning their bank accounts or loans. The level of such interest should be left to market forces.

The treaties do not provide any basis to propose legislative measures on the matters raised by the Honourable Member and do not give the Commission any powers of direct intervention in this area.

Therefore, the Commission, the national central banks and the European central bank cannot regulate directly the level of prices that credit institutions charge for their services, nor the remuneration capital. These aspects are to be established by each credit institution on the basis of its commercial strategy and according to the principles of a free market.

Consequently, the Commission does not foresee any initiatives aimed at regulating the practices of the Community credit institutions toward their customers.

(2001/C 26 E/191) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1091/00 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Freedom of movement for EU officials

Swedish television recently reported on the case of a woman who had worked for three years at one of the EU institutions before deciding to return home to Sweden. When she returned, she found that she was not covered by the social insurance systems at all and was treated as if she had just arrived as an immigrant. After using up her savings from her time as an EU official, she was forced to live on welfare benefits until she found a job.

There may be many reasons why well-paid officials return to their countries of origin, and it goes without saying that everyone must be free to make that choice. However, it does seem wrong that EU officials should feel compelled to stay put because they have been removed from their national systems without having any other system to rely on for security.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to make it easier for EU officials, too, to move freely?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Under Community law there is no unified European social security system. Each Member State is responsible for its own social security system and decides which benefits shall be provided, the conditions for eligibility and the value of the benefits. In general, national social security schemes do not allocate unemployment benefits to people who resign from professional occupation.

Officials and other servants of the Communities are protected by a social security scheme instituted by the Council under Article 15 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities of the Communities. The provisions governing the benefits of this scheme are contained in the staff regulations. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/155

Social security schemes for officials of the institutions are not included in the Community provisions for the co-ordination of Member States’ social security systems under Regulations (EEC) no 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (1) and no 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) no 1408/71 (2)(3). There are, however, several transitional arrangements for officials who stop working. A distinction has to be made between officials, temporary staff and auxiliary staff.

In case of resignation, officials will not receive any unemployment benefit or family allowances and their accident insurance will stop. They may continue enjoying sickness insurance for a maximum of six months after resignation in order to be entitled to a national sickness insurance scheme. They benefit from their acquired pension rights from the age of 50 (or 60) or receive a lump sum at departure in the case of less than ten years’ service in the European institutions. The official has also the possibility to transfer pension rights to the pension scheme of an administration or an organisation if an agreement has been concluded with the Community. Temporary staff have the opportunity, in certain circumstances and in most Member States, to maintain part of their national social security schemes while in service and while covered by the social security schemes for officials of the Institutions. At the end of their contract, if they have no immediate further employment, they will benefit, for a maximum period of two years, from unemployment and family allowances as well as from sickness cover. In the case of resignation during their contract the same rules apply as for officials.

Auxiliary staff are not covered by the social security schemes for officials of the European Institutions but affiliated to the compulsory national social security system of the Member State to whose system they were last affiliated or that of their Member State of origin. As such they take full benefit of the Community provisions for the co-ordination mentioned above.

The Commission considers that the rules for Community officials outlined above do not impede their free movement.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971. (2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972. (3) Last consolidated version: Council Regulation No 118/97 OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(2001/C 26 E/192) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1097/00 by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Disposal of Rover Cars by BMW

The Commission will be well aware of the sudden decision by BMW, on Thursday, 16 March 2000, to dispose of its Rover Cars operation, which will be restructured into a new MG car company and employ much fewer people.

Could the Commission advise:

1. whether the provision of aid by the UK Government for this restructuring will be deemed to fall under the Commission’s state aid provisions and therefore be subject to extended review, and

2. whether the sudden withdrawal of supply to contracted Rover dealers constitutes a breach of contract under the Commission’s block exemption rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

1. The United Kingdom has notified to the Commission a detailed aid package linked to the planned investment of BMW in the Longbridge plant. At the time being the Commission investigation of the C 26 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

notified aid package is still pending. It is up to the United Kingdom authorities to inform the Commission whether the changed situation as regards the future ownership of Rover has an impact on the notified aid package. After having received this information from the United Kingdom, the Commission will act accordingly.

2. The provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (1) (the block exemption regulation) with regard to dealers’ rights and obligations essentially apply to dealers’ sales targets, dealers’ stock requirements, cross-selling between dealers within the network, and the duration and termination of the dealer’s agreement. The obligation of the carmaker to supply his dealers with cars is a matter of contractual law which would not fall within the scope of the block exemption.

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.

(2001/C 26 E/193) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1112/00 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Reimbursement of non-business expenditure under the 1994 UK VAT Act

Could the Commission confirm that the arrangements under the 1994 UK VAT Act for reimbursing bodies such as local authorities for their non-business expenditure do not contravene Commission rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

The reimbursement of VAT paid on the expenditure of a body governed by public law which is not a taxable person under the terms of Article 4(5) of the sixth Council Directive 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 (77/388/EEC) (1) is not incompatible with the said Directive.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2001/C 26 E/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1120/00 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Imprisonment of Arkin Birdal and the judgment against Necmettin Erkaban in Turkey

On Tuesday 28 March 200 the Public Prosecutor in Ankara refused to suspend the prison sentence against Arkin Birdal, a renowned and courageous defender of civil rights in Turkey accused of making ‘subversive speeches’. His lawyers had requested a six months’ suspension of the sentence because he needs intensive medical treatment for injuries sustained as a result of an attempt made on his life.

At the beginning of March the former Prime Minister Necmettin Erkaban was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment for similar offences, because of a speech he made in 1994.

1. Does the Commission not consider that these blatant violations of freedom of expression and human rights are at odds with the commitments entered into by the Turkish Government with a view to EU membership and the basic conditions for the accession of new States, such as respect for the founding principles of the Union, sanctioned in Article 6(1) of the TEU, and the political criteria laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993? 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/157

2. Does the Commission not consider that it should prevail upon the Ankara government to put an end to the judicial and other forms of persecution inflicted on Mr Birdal and Mr Erkaban?

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

The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member on the situation of Mr Akin Birdal, who has had to return to prison to complete his sentence, and Mr Necmettin Erbakan, who was sentenced to a year in prison.

With regard to Mr Birdal, a well-known defender of human rights in Turkey, the Commission fully supports the statement by the Council Presidency of 30 March 2000 calling on the Turkish Government to take steps to free him.

This latest development is all the more regrettable since the decision of the last European Council in Helsinki on 10 December 1999, confirming Turkey’s status as a candidate country, called on it to make a special effort to respect the political criteria laid down at Copenhagen.

It is therefore vital that Turkey resolutely commit itself to a sustained process of democratisation and adopt the necessary reforms. In this respect the revision and even repeal of Article 312 of the penal code, under which Mr Birdal was convicted in 1998 and Mr Erbakan in March 2000, appears inevitable.

(2001/C 26 E/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1181/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 April 2000)

Subject: Conservation of the district of San Lorenzo in Florence

Is the Commission aware that the district of San Lorenzo in Florence is deteriorating and suffering neglect?

How does it intend to safeguard the artistic, historical and cultural heritage of this district, whose market attracts millions of tourists from all over Europe every year?

How does the Commission intend to guarantee the safety of tradesmen, itinerant salesmen and tourists and ensure that trading can be carried on normally, thereby preventing the deterioration from gradually discouraging craft industries and driving people away from Florence’s historic centre?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (29 May 2000)

Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty gives the Community responsibility for encouraging cooperation between the Member States in the area of culture. The question raised by the Honourable Member does not come under the responsibility of the Community but, on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity, is the sole responsibility of the Member State.

(2001/C 26 E/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1185/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission (12 April 2000)

Subject: Tax burden on single persons

The tax rates to which single persons are subject vary from one European Union country to another. A recent OECD study shows that the tax levied on single persons in some countries exceeds 50 % of C 26 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

income, while in other countries it is at least 10 % lower. In view of the low birth rate in several EU countries and the advisability of ensuring that similar conditions apply to all citizens in this category, does the Commission agree that it it is necessary to propose harmonising in a downwards direction the tax levied on the incomes of single persons throughout the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2000)

The Commission would point out that, as Community law currently stands, personal direct taxation is essentially a matter for the Member States, which are free to lay down the system of taxation applicable to their residents on the sole condition that they adhere to the fundamental principles of the EC Treaty, such as the prohibition of any discrimination based on nationality.

It is true that certain initiatives are currently being considered with a view to introducing a degree of coordination of national legislation concerning the most mobile tax bases, particularly situations involving transnational factors, which are more likely to affect the proper operation of the single market.

In keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, however, the Commission does not regard a Community initiative aimed at harmonisation or even coordination of the progressiveness of personal taxation, whether for single persons or families, as a political priority for the moment. Moreover, the solutions which individual Member States have devised on this issue are intimately linked to local political and social traditions, which deserve to be respected.

The Commission can only hope that the budgetary discipline imposed on the Member States by their participation in the single currency will bring about a general reduction in the tax burden which may benefit single persons along with other categories of taxpayers.

(2001/C 26 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1189/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Subject: Penalties for the use of toxic products on Spanish oranges

In its answer to Written Question P-0357/98 (1), the Commission confirmed that rosin modified by maleic anhydride and esterified with pentaerythrol is unacceptable for food use.

Given that this substance is used for the processing and conservation of Spanish oranges and that the Commission intended to carry out a detailed study to verify whether penalties should be imposed for the infringement of Community rules,

will the Commission say:

1. whether the necessary information has been gathered, now that two years have elapsed, to carry out a full investigation of this alarming problem?

2. what steps it intends to take vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities for repeated infringement of European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC (2)?

3. what steps it intends to take to ensure proper control of plant protection products so as to prevent the marketing of products harmful to consumers?

(1) OJ C 223, 17.7.1998, p. 170. (2) OJ L 61, 18.3.1995, p. 1. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/159

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

As a response to the information provided by the Honourable Member in his written question No P-357/98, the Commission took the necessary steps to find out from the Spanish authorities the exact situation and commenced a pre-litigation procedure.

The Spanish authorities admitted that they authorised a substance containing resins modified by maleic anhydride and esterified with pentaerythrol for treating citrus fruit after harvest. However, they stated that they believed the substance in question was covered by the provisions of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1).

As the Commission pointed out that the practice in question contravened the relevant Community legislation, in particular European Parliament and Council Directive No 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners, the Spanish authorities confirmed recently that they would withdraw licences for the controversial substances. The Commission is therefore closing the file.

In general, it is the responsibility of Member States to ensure that economic actors are complying with the above legislation.

If the Member State fails in this obligation, it is up to the Commission to decide whether to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2001/C 26 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1219/00 by Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Safety of workers in Spanish tunnels

The Community and the Member States are endeavouring to reduce the industrial accident rate to a minimum. However, the measures adopted by the Spanish Government in 1997 to transpose Council Directives 92/57/EEC (1) of 24 June 1992 and 92/104/EEC (2) of 3 December 1992 have given rise to serious inconsistencies posing additional safety risks in civil engineering tunnel works. The above Community Directives on the safety of workers make a clear distinction between extractive industries and civil engineering works. Directive 92/57/EEC relates to the safety of temporary or mobile construction sites, and Articles 1 and 2 explicitly exclude extractive industries. ‘Work on wells, underground earthworks and tunnels’ is listed in Annex II to the Directive (point 6) among the types of work involving risks to workers. Directive 92/104/EEC relates only to safety in the extractive industries, in other words underground or opencast mines.

Prompted by the Ministry for the Prime Minister’s Office, the Spanish Government transposed Directive 92/57/EEC quite correctly under Royal Decree 1627/1997, issued on 24 October of that year, laying down minimum safety provisions applicable to civil engineering works, including tunnelling, digging of wells, and other works entailing underground earth movements. Article 1(2) of the Decree expressly excludes extractive industries. However, when it issued Royal Decree 1389/1997 of 5 September 1997, stemming from a proposal from the Ministry for Industry, Energy, and Mining, the Government transposed Directive 92/104/EEC surprisingly inaccurately in that Article 2(4) of the Decree refers not only to the extractive industries, but in addition to all industries carrying out tunnelling or (gallery) driving operations.

As a result of these two inconsistent provisions, site managers and other tunnel workers are having to contend with a confused body of mandatory rules and contradictory optional instructions because there is an overlap of responsibilities between authorities that enforce different safety regulations and separate systems of penalties. The fact that substantial amounts are expected to be invested in public works in Spain over the next few years could increase the instances of risk. C 26 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

What steps will the Commission take to ensure that Directive 92/104/EEC is properly transposed in Spain and, specifically, to make the Spanish authorities repeal Article 2(4) of Royal Decree 1389/1997 of 5 September 1997?

(1) OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p. 6. (2) OJ L 404, 31.12.1992, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2000)

The Commission has examined the Spanish measures for implementing Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/ EEC) and Council Directive 92/104/EEC of 3 December 1992 on the minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers in surface and underground mineral-extracting industries (twelfth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and has concluded that they have been correctly transposed into Spanish law.

This conclusion remains unaffected by the fact that under Real Decreto 1389/1997, which transposes Directive 92/104/EEC on surface and underground mineral-extracting industries into Spanish law, tunnelling activities of all kinds are subject to the minimum requirements applicable to the mining sector. Indeed, Real Decreto 1389/1997 states that this provision is without prejudice to the rules applicable to the construction sector, i.e. provisions transposing Council Directive 92/57/EEC on temporary or mobile construction sites.

Insofar as Directive 92/57/CEE was adopted on the basis of Article 137 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 118A), it lays down ‘minimum requirements’ in the field of health and safety to be implemented on temporary or mobile construction sites. The expression ‘minimum requirements’ indicates that the Member States are at liberty to maintain or introduce measures more stringent that those which form the subject of the Directive, in accordance with Article 137(5) of the EC Treaty. This means that a Member State may extend the scope of application of the minimum requirements laid down for the mining sector to include activities in the construction sector provided that the minimum requirements established for this sector by Directive 92/57/EEC are not compromised.

An examination of Spanish legislation has shown that the application of the minimum requirements for the mining sector to some construction activities such as tunnelling has increased the level of protection for workers as laid down by Directive 92/57/EEC.

It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure proper checks and monitoring of the national provisions transposing directives. In this connection, the appointment of the competent authorities is entirely a matter for the Member States.

(2001/C 26 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1236/00 by Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE) to the Council

(10 April 2000)

Subject: Medicinal herbs and plants

Because of the widespread distribution and abuse of medicinal herbs, without proper controls over either the marketing or prescribing of these products, this highly sensitive sector needs to be regulated as a matter of urgency, bearing in mind the possible effects on human health.

International scientific literature on the subject has revealed, as widely reported in the media recently in both the United States and Europe, that some of these medicinal herbs, when used without medical supervision, are responsible for thousands of cases of fatal poisoning, as well as causing a series of unwanted or toxic side-effects in the form of allergies or affecting the cardiovascular system, the kidneys, the central nervous system and other systems or organs. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/161

Unfortunately, as a result of subtle and deceitful propaganda by the industries and operators concerned, the belief has taken root that herbs, being natural products, are useful and harmless and produce no toxic effects.

The uncontrolled use of medicinal herbs is dangerous for the following reasons:

the concentrations and/or doses of the active principles present in herbs freely sold by herbalists are not properly standardised, with the result that it is never possible to be sure what dose has been taken;

it is not known whether pollutants such as herbicides, pesticides or heavy metals may be present;

little is yet known about interactions between herbs and other drugs or foodstuffs or caused by the administering of several herbs at the same time, with the result that the taking of some medicinal herbs may produce unforeseeable toxic effects;

there is a danger that the use of medicinal herbs thought to be effective and innocuous by uninformed patients may lead to their abandoning conventional treatments such as antineoplastic drugs with serious consequences for their health.

Consumer protection is needed in the following areas:

consumers must be informed of the active principles and possible pollutants present in the medicinal herbs they are taking;

consumers must be aware of the exact dose they are taking;

consumers must be informed of interactions between herbs and other drugs or foodstuffs;

consumers must be informed of risks deriving from the toxicity of the active principles and possible pollutants.

In the light of the above considerations, what steps does the Council plan to take to protect public health? Will it review the rules governing the marketing of medicinal herbs in the light of the documented scientific findings? Will it ask the EMEA to assess the information available on individual plants and herbs and provide the guidelines needed for the proper dispensing of these products, which are currently administered with hardly any controls?

(26 June 2000)

The Council shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member about the uncontrolled use of medicinal plants and herbs and the advisability of protecting the consumer against the risks of abusing these products.

It was with this in mind that the Council, on 20 December 1995, adopted a resolution on medicinal plant preparations in which it invited the Commission to study, in close collaboration with the Member States, the problems posed in this context (1). The Commission has yet to respond to this invitation.

(1) OJ C 350, 30.12.1995, p. 6.

(2001/C 26 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1254/00 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Murder of the Irish lawyer, Rosemary Nelson

On 15 March last year the solicitor, Rosemary Nelson, died of injuries sustained in a car bomb attack. C 26 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

A few months earlier, she had appeared before the Washington Human Rights sub-committee to denounce the death threats and verbal and physical abuse of which she was the victim. Officers of the Northern Ireland police force, the RUC, were named as being responsible for the abuse and the reason for it was her reputation as ‘the IRA’s lawyer’. A report published by British-Irish Rights Watch claims that the British Government was aware of the threats to Rosemary Nelson.

1. Does the Council believe that the British Government was wrong not to include Rosemary Nelson in its protection programme?

2. Does the Council not think that there should be the greatest possible transparency in the inquiry into the murder, for which the RUC itself is apparently responsible?

3. Does the Council think it should ask the British Government to open its own inquiry into the murder?

(26 June 2000)

The Honourable Member’s questions relate to matters which are not within the Council’s competence.

(2001/C 26 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1313/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Suitability of tender documents for a contract concerning the supply of work clothes for the Italian postal workers

The CESAR research centre (centre for aeronautical and environmental studies) acts as a consultant to several government departments (including the department for civil protection of the Prime Minister’s Office) on matters of environmental protection and the protection of the health and safety of workers. In this capacity it was therefore asked for its opinion on the invitation to tender and the related specifications issued by the Poste Italiane SpA (Italian postal service) concerning a contract for the supply of items of clothing, including 100 000 items of personal protective equipment (PPE).

CESAR found that the said tender documents were unsuitable for two reasons: firstly, the tender specifications were such that it was highly likely that the PPEs offered by companies would be entirely useless as a means of protecting workers (owing to their poor quality) and, secondly, that they would actually be unusable (if the invitation to tender for the supply of PPEs is not accompanied by an invitation to tender for the laundering, replacement and repair of the said items, the clothes will be unusable).

So far, these findings have been completely ignored. Can the Commission check whether the Community laws on tenders and on safety in the workplace have been complied with and, if not, urge the Italian postal service to suspend and/or cancel the contract in question?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not in a position to determine whether the invitation to tender in question is in conformity with Community procurement rules and, in particular, with the provisions of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (1). 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/163

The information provided indicates rather that the provisions contained in the procedural documents supposedly cannot lead to a satisfactory result.

In order to be able to answer the question fully, the Commission would be particularly grateful to the Honourable Member if he could forward the additional information he has on the subject of the breaches of Community procurement law alleged to have occurred in the contract award procedure initiated by Poste Italiane.

When it has examined this information, the Commission will assess the possibility of initiating infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, should it be of the opinion that an infringement of Community law has taken place.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.

(2001/C 26 E/202) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1344/00 by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission (18 April 2000)

Subject: The Commission’s challenging of the principle of ‘assumption of employment’ for performing artists laid down in Article L 762-1 of the French Labour Code

France is threatened with legal proceeedings before the European Court of Justice for its refusal to waive the ‘assumption of employment’ for foreign artists referred to in Article L762-1 of the French Labour Code.

Is this measure not excessive, given that to apply this article exclusively to French artists in effect puts them at a disadvantage in their own country?

In fact, it means that those who employ foreign artists would no longer have to pay social costs but would have to do so when employing French artists.

This downwards harmonisation will prejudice French performing artists. Is this not tantamount to a sentence of death for this specifically French provision which offers performing artists one of the highest standards of social protection in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (26 May 2000)

Firstly, the Commission would like to stress that it has not yet decided to refer the matter of ‘assumption of employment’ for foreign artists to the Court of Justice. However, it has delivered a reasoned opinion. As yet the French Government has not replied.

In this reasoned opinion, the Commission called on France to take the necessary measures to ensure that ‘assumption of employment’, as provided by Article L 762-1 of the French Labour Code, is compatible with the free movement of services, as referred to in Articles 49 and 50 (ex Articles 59 and 60) of the EC Treaty.

Freedom to provide services is one of the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty. The concept of service provider, as per Articles 49 and 50 of the EC Treaty, has Community implications and cannot be defined simply by referring to the legislation of a Member State. Otherwise, the effectiveness of the free movement of services could be compromised, as the meaning of this term could be laid down and modified unilaterally by national legislation which could at will exclude certain categories of persons from the benefits gained under the Treaty.

The Commission would therefore point out that it does not wish to harmonise the conditions of access to and pursuit of artists’ activities at Community level, or to discriminate against French artists in relation to foreign artists, nor does it want the employers of foreign artists to pay greater social costs.

On the other hand, it calls for recognition of the status of self-employed service providers who are established as such in another Member State where they legally and regularly provide services similar to those they wish to offer occasionally in France. It seems that ‘assumption of employment’ in France does C 26 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

not take into account the recognition of such status arising in another Member State. This seems unjustifiable, particularly where a foreign artist in this situation cannot pursue his activities in France unless his social security contributions are paid in France (e.g. for a supplementary pension scheme), although he actually cannot benefit from social advantages in France because his activities in this Member State are temporary.

The Commission would also point out that the Community rules which coordinate the various national security systems (contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, of 14 June 1971, on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (1) and its implementing regulation, Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72, of 21 March 1972 (2)) guarantee for migrant workers the principle of being subject to a single social security scheme which, in principle, is that of the Member State of employment. A lex loci laboris derogation exists for posted workers, which allows workers who are subject to a Member State’s social security system, by reason of the activity they normally pursue there, to remain part of this country’s system while undertaking temporary work in another Member State, whatever the nature of the activity undertaken in the latter. The Court of Justice specified the way in which this procedure is to be applied to posted self-employed persons in a ruling of 30 March 2000 on the Banks case, C-178/97, which relates to performing artists, subject to the British social security system for self-employed persons, who performed temporarily in an opera in Belgium.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 118/97 (OJ L 28, 30.10.1997). (2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972.

(2001/C 26 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1392/00 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Cross-subsidisation and State support in the postal industry

Article 14 of Directive 97/67/EC (1) stipulates that Member States must take the measures necessary to ensure that universal service providers keep separate accounts, in order to preclude cross-subsidisation. Liberalised and non-liberalised services must keep separate accounts. A clear distinction must also be made between services which are part of the universal service and services which are not.

1. Does the Commission agree that keeping separate accounts is essential to prevent the cross- subsidisation of activities?

2. How does the Commission supervise compliance with the rules on separate accounts? Is such supervision effective?

In Germany the Deutsche Post AG has the statutory monopoly for the delivery of letters up to 200 grams and ‘direct mail’ up to 50 grams. The monopoly will expire at the earliest on 31 December 2002.

3. Does the Commission consider it permissible to use the profits from State monopolies (such as the Deutsche Post) to subsidise liberalised postal services?

4. Does the Commission consider that investing the profits from State monopolies in liberalised postal services via cross-subsidisation is a form of state support that is incompatible with the Treaty?

5. If it does, what does this imply for present and future cases in which the situation described in Question 4 occurs?

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/165

(2001/C 26 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1393/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Cross-subsidisation and State support in the postal industry

2. Does the Commission agree that keeping separate accounts is essential to prevent the cross- subsidisation of activities?

2. How does the Commission supervise compliance with the rules on separate accounts? Is such supervision effective?

3. Does the Commission consider it permissible to use the profits from State monopolies (such as the Deutsche Post) to subsidise liberalised postal services?

5. Does the Commission consider that investing the profits from State monopolies in liberalised postal services via cross-subsidisation is a form of state support that is incompatible with the Treaty?

5. If it does, what does this imply for present and future cases in which the situation described in Question 4 occurs?

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14.

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1392/00 and P-1393/00 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

1. The separation of accounts is a key factor in ensuring that the accounts of universal service providers are transparent, and in highlighting any cross-subsidies between different activities, particularly those concerning the areas of monopoly and competition. To this end, Article 14 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (1) stipulates that separate accounts must be kept.

2. In its role as guardian of the Treaties and secondary Community legislation, the Commission monitors the national transposition measures to ensure that the Member States implement the provisions laid down by Directive 97/67/EC. The Commission has also recently asked the Member States for details of their arrangements for implementing Article 14, as the deadline for transposing this measure expired on 10 February 2000.

3. to 5. The use of profits from State monopolies to assist services which are open to competition may, in certain cases, be contrary to the Community rules on competition. In this respect, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to its position as explained in its notice of 6 February 1998 (2). The situation with the accounts of the German postal service, Deutsche Post AG, is currently being examined by the Commission within the context of the rules on State aid. As this examination is still under way, it is not possible to give any final results.

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998. (2) Notice from the Commission on the application of the competition rules to the postal sector and on the assessment of certain State measures relating to postal services, OJ C 39, 6.2.1998. C 26 E/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/205) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1445/00 by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Commission

(3 May 2000)

Subject: Sport and the EU Treaties

In recent years increasing numbers of sports-related cases have been brought to the attention of the European Commission. This situation is complicated by the fact that the legal framework of the European Union contains no reference to sport.

Does the Commission believe it is desirable or indeed feasible to include in the IGC a protocol or annex on sport?

What form or legal weight does the Commission believe such a protocol or annex should have?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2000)

The Commission’s opinion on the Intergovernmental Conference called with a view to amending the Treaties is set out in the document entitled ‘Adapting the Institutions to make a success of enlargement’ (1).

This document does not contain any references to the possible inclusion of sport in the Treaties.

(1) COM(2000) 34 final.

(2001/C 26 E/206) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1530/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999 (1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children, the European Parliament called on the Commission to disseminate best practice in the Member States as regards facilities for children, specific benefits relating to forms of care, the reintegration of elderly people into social life and making use of their abilities for the benefit of children, safety in public places and the adaptation of public transport to the needs of children.

Could the Commission state what action it has taken, or intends to take, to put this proposal into practice?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79.

(2001/C 26 E/207) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1531/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999 (1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children the European Parliament recommended, in order to combat child and maternal mortality, the introduction of a European perinatal epidemiological network composed of regional perinatal surveillance units within each country and of a common European perinatal database. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/167

Could the Commission state what action it has taken, or intends to take, to put this proposal into practice?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79.

(2001/C 26 E/208) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1532/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999 (1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children, the European Parliament called for the structure and role of the European Family Policy Observatory operating under the aegis of the Commission’s directorate-general for employment and social affairs to be strengthened, for it to submit an annual report to the European Parliament and for it to continue to draw up an inventory of legislation and policies affecting children in the Member States.

Could the Commission state what action it has taken, or intends to take, to put this proposal into practice?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79.

(2001/C 26 E/209) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1533/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999 (1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children the European Parliament proposed, in order to prevent the mistreatment and violence suffered by children, the creation of a European centre for children.

Could the Commission state what action it has taken, or intends to take, to put this proposal into practice?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79.

(2001/C 26 E/210) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1534/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999 (1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children, the European Parliament expressed support for the idea of a clearly identified unit within the Commission to deal with family affairs and child protection and called urgently for the revival of the Commission’s interdepartmental group on child-related issues.

Could the Commission state what action it has taken, or intends to take, to put this proposal into practice?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79. C 26 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1535/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999 (1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children, the European Parliament called on the Commission to hold a conference in the coming year, with the European Parliament, the NGOs and the Council of Europe, on the situation of children in the European Union.

Could the Commission state what action it has taken, or intends to take, to put this proposal into practice?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79.

(2001/C 26 E/212) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1536/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999 (1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children, the European Parliament called for all proposals for Community acts to be accompanied by a family impact statement geared to the welfare of children.

Could the Commission state what action it has taken, or intends to take, to put this proposal into practice?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79.

(2001/C 26 E/213) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1537/00 by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999 (1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children, the European Parliament called on the Commission to present an assessment of the application of Council Directive 94/33/EC (2) on the protection of young people at work.

Could the Commission state, in particular, its assessment of the transposition of that directive in the fifteen Member States?

With regard to France, could the Commission state whether it regards as adequate the transposition measures notified to it by that country?

Finally, does the Commission intend to present in the near future a proposal for legislation to supplement that directive?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79. (2) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/169

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1530/00, E-1531/000, E-1532/00, E-1533/00, E-1534/00, E-1535/00, E-1536/00 and E-1537/00 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 26 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1581/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: European City of Culture

How would the Commission respond to a request from up to three towns wishing to be European City of Culture?

Would it be permissible under the current criteria, and would such regional applications be considered?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

All decisions concerning the designation of the European capital of culture until 2004 have already been taken on an intergovernmental basis by the ministers for culture meeting within the Council. The procedure governing the designation of such cities from 2005 until 2019 is laid down by Decision 1419/1999/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 25 May 1999 establishing a Community action for the European capital of culture event for the years 2005 to 2019 (1).

Article 2.1 of this Decision states that ‘…. The nomination or nominations shall be notified to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Committee of the Regions by the Member State concerned ….’ As there is no restriction on the number of cities to be proposed by each Member State it would be possible for any number of nominations to be notified. Article 2.2 of the same Decision sets out the procedures that will be used to assess the nominations and Annex II of the Decision sets out the criteria that could be used to this end.

Given that Article 2.1 states that ‘one city shall be designated as European Capital of Culture in turn ….’ there would not appear to be any scope for a regional application.

(1) OJ L 166, 1.7.1999.

(2001/C 26 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1636/00 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Lack of job security and industrial accidents in Spain and in the region of Murcia

At the Lisbon Summit a commitment was made to pursue full and high quality employment within the EU. While the French Government pointed to the experience of the reduction of working hours as a means of creating stable high quality jobs, it is the formula pursued by the Spanish and British Governments of C 26 E/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

further deregulating employment conditions in order to increase employment which has gained acceptance. The Spanish experience over the last four years has shown that jobs are indeed created this way but that job insecurity is high and casual employment frequent, with a high incidence of industrial accidents, Murcia being the region with the highest industrial accident rate in Spain.

In 1999, there were a total of 1 671 000 industrial accidents in Spain (12,44 % more than in the previous year),resulting in 930 151 workers having to take sick leave and in 1 572 fatalities, most of them at the work place. In the Region of Murcia, there were 68 587 industrial accidents last year, resulting in 29 deaths at the workplace. The region has seen the death of 17 workers at the workplace in the first quarter of the year 2000 alone.

This is the result of the working conditions which prevail, and in particular of the extreme lack of job security and the high incidence of casual employment. In Spain, 92 % of employment contracts signed each day are of a temporary nature and over 32 % of workers have no fixed contract. As yet, the Region of Murcia does not have a significantly higher level of temporary employment and lower job security than average.

Does the Commission not consider that the conditions under which jobs are being created in the various countries and regions in the EU need to be monitored in order to ensure that such job creation is not at the cost of the stability and dignity of workers, and notably of young people entering the labour market for the first time?

Does the Commission consider that it would be appropriate to analyse the conditions and consequences of job creation in the Murcia region where it leads to a greater lack of job security and a higher incidence of industrial accidents?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (20 June 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his oral question H-0419/00 during question time at Parliament’s May II 2000 part-session (1).

(1) Debates of the Parliament (May II 2000).

(2001/C 26 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1668/00 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 May 2000)

Subject: Discriminatory ‘entry tax’ in Greek waters

1. Is the Commission aware that the Greek Government has decided as from January 2000 to charge an ‘entry tax’ on leisure boats over seven metres long which are not permanently anchored in Greek waters?

2. What is the Commission’s view of the fact that this entry tax (GRD 15 000) is more than seven times the normal entry price for tourist boats (GRD 2000)?

3. What does the Commission intend to do to counter discrimination against non-Greek shipowners, who are the main victims of this decision?

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

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1062/00 by Mr von Wogau (1).

(1) See page 150. 26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/171

(2001/C 26 E/217) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1810/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (8 June 2000)

Subject: The provision of public toilets throughout the EU

Throughout the EU, there are varying standards as regards the provision of public toilets. Does the Commission share my view that members of the public should not be obliged to purchase food and drink in an establishment in order to use its toilets?

Will the Commission please advise me whether there are any proposals to make it a requirement of EU Member States to provide an adequate number of public toilets, in which a high standard of cleanliness should be maintained?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (22 June 2000)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.

(2001/C 26 E/218) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1822/00 by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission (7 June 2000)

Subject: Follow-up to the Lisbon European Council decision on the outermost regions

The Lisbon European Council called on the Commission to submit, as soon as possible, proposals for the implementation of the Commission’s report with regard to Article 299(2) of the Treaty.

Could the Commission present its intended timetable for doing so?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (27 June 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the replies it gave to Oral Questions H-0413/00 by Mr Costa Neves and H-0440/00 by Mr Casaca during question time at Parliament’s Mai 2000 (1) and Juni 2000 (2) part session.

(1) Debates of the Parliament (Mai 2000). (2) Debates of the Parliament (June 2000).

(2001/C 26 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2009/00 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission (16 June 2000)

Subject: Siphoning off of European social fund resources in Catalonia

In recent months there has been a resurgence of reports concerning the siphoning off of a significant proportion of the funding allocated to employment programmes in Catalonia which are co-financed by the European social fund.

What action has the Commission taken in response to these reports, of which it must surely be aware? C 26 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (22 June 2000) The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-1071/00 (1).

(1) See page 151.