ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C 280 E Volume 43 of the European Communities 3 October 2000
English edition Information and Notices
Notice No Contents Page
I (Information)
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER
(2000/C 280 E/001) E-1829/99 by Anna Karamanou to the Council Subject: Smoking as a cause of ill-health in the world and EU policy ...... 1 (2000/C 280 E/002) E-1912/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Substandard road construction funded by the 2nd Community Support Framework for Greece (Supplementary Answer) ...... 2 (2000/C 280 E/003) E-1955/99 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Kosovo Agenda 2000 ...... 3 (2000/C 280 E/004) E-2014/99 by Maria Martens to the Commission Subject: Habit-forming substances added to cigarettes by the tobacco industry ...... 4 (2000/C 280 E/005) P-2017/99 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Report on quality control of 2nd CSF projects (Supplementary Answer) ...... 5 (2000/C 280 E/006) E-2034/99 by Glyn Ford to the Council Subject: Genetically modified crops ...... 6 (2000/C 280 E/007) E-2074/99 by Agnes Schierhuber to the Commission Subject: Market transparency in agriculture ...... 7 (2000/C 280 E/008) E-2096/99 by Christos Folias to the Commission Subject: The Y2K problem ...... 9 (2000/C 280 E/009) E-2129/99 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: Fisheries policy of the European Commission in the next Millennium Round ...... 10 (2000/C 280 E/010) E-2156/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Utilisation of structural funds by the Latium Regional Council ...... 11 (2000/C 280 E/011) E-2158/99 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Regional development funding ...... 12 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 280 E/012) E-2171/99 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Interception of telecommunications by British Intelligence Services ...... 13 (2000/C 280 E/013) E-2175/99 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission Subject: Marking of PDO and PGI products ...... 13 (2000/C 280 E/014) E-2176/99 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Construction of an underground railway in Brescia, Italy ...... 15 (2000/C 280 E/015) E-2189/99 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Infringement of Community insurance legislation and distortion of competition in Greece ...... 16 (2000/C 280 E/016) E-2209/99 by Richard Corbett to the Commission Subject: Structural Funds in per capita terms ...... 18 (2000/C 280 E/017) E-2235/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Emoluments of Commissioners ...... 19 (2000/C 280 E/018) E-2257/99 by Robert Evans to the Commission Subject: Transport of donkeys ...... 20 (2000/C 280 E/019) E-2258/99 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Tax discussions ...... 21 (2000/C 280 E/020) E-2260/99 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Environmental conservation and the historical heritage of the Dos Llometes site in Valencia (Spain) .... 21 (2000/C 280 E/021) E-2290/99 by Carlos Carnero González to the Council Subject: Future of shipbuilding in Europe ...... 23 (2000/C 280 E/022) E-2311/99 by Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza to the Council Subject: Aid to the shipbuilding industry ...... 23 (2000/C 280 E/023) E-2351/99 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Council Subject: Future of the European shipbuilding industry ...... 24 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2290/99, E-2311/99 and E-2351/99 ...... 24 (2000/C 280 E/024) P-2296/99 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Council Subject: Humanitarian aid for Iraq ...... 25 (2000/C 280 E/025) E-2307/99 by Lone Dybkjær to the Commission Subject: UN Convention to Combat Desertification ...... 26 (2000/C 280 E/026) E-2313/99 by Ari Vatanen to the Commission Subject: Safety of rail traffic in the EU countries ...... 27 (2000/C 280 E/027) E-2314/99 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission Subject: Motor-car insurance in foreign countries ...... 28 (2000/C 280 E/028) E-2339/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: The Greek Shipping Register ...... 29 (2000/C 280 E/029) E-2350/99 by Roger Helmer to the Commission Subject: Grant funding ...... 30 (2000/C 280 E/030) E-2359/99 by Cristiana Muscardini and Brian Crowley to the Commission Subject: Synthetic drugs ...... 31 (2000/C 280 E/031) E-2365/99 by Anders Wijkman to the Commission Subject: Impact of carbon dioxide emissions on the climate ...... 32 (2000/C 280 E/032) E-2370/99 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Twenty years of protection of birds in the European Union ...... 33 (2000/C 280 E/033) E-2381/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Priority of international law over an EU directive, and compliance with provisions of treaties concerning the ‘Iron Rhine’ ...... 35 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 280 E/034) E-2382/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Impact on Southern Africa of the trade, development and cooperation agreement with South Africa ... 36 (2000/C 280 E/035) E-2384/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Shutdown of the unsafe nuclear reactor in Bohunice (Slovakia) ...... 37 (2000/C 280 E/036) E-2386/99 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: German assistance in constructing a laboratory for chemical weapons ...... 38 (2000/C 280 E/037) E-2394/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Council Subject: The Tenda pass tunnel ...... 39 (2000/C 280 E/038) E-2397/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Road infrastructure in Carrara ...... 40 (2000/C 280 E/039) E-2402/99 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Use of sewage sludge as a fertiliser in the agricultural sector ...... 41 (2000/C 280 E/040) E-2405/99 by Karl-Heinz Florenz to the Commission Subject: Suspension of payment of structural funding ...... 42 (2000/C 280 E/041) E-2407/99 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Esperanto ...... 43 (2000/C 280 E/042) E-2414/99 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Illegal burial of toxic waste ...... 43 (2000/C 280 E/043) E-2420/99 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Providing a scaled-down military structure for the EU ...... 44 (2000/C 280 E/044) E-2443/99 by Rolf Linkohr to the Commission Subject: Europe Agreements with Eastern European countries ...... 45 (2000/C 280 E/045) E-2452/99 by Mathieu Grosch to the Council Subject: Community action programme for youth ...... 46 (2000/C 280 E/046) E-2458/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: The European stationery industry ...... 47 (2000/C 280 E/047) E-2463/99 by Inger Schörling to the Council Subject: EU rules and Sweden’s restrictive drugs policy ...... 48 (2000/C 280 E/048) E-2466/99 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Council Subject: Travel to European Parliament part-sessions in Strasbourg ...... 49 (2000/C 280 E/049) E-2467/99 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Travel to European Parliament part-sessions in Strasbourg ...... 50 (2000/C 280 E/050) E-2472/99 by Brian Simpson to the Council Subject: Common Air Traffic Control area throughout the EU ...... 50 (2000/C 280 E/051) E-2476/99 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Complaint about harassment ...... 51 (2000/C 280 E/052) E-2480/99 by Cristiana Muscardini and Mauro Nobilia to the Commission Subject: Housing safety standards ...... 52 (2000/C 280 E/053) E-2488/99 by Robert Evans to the Commission Subject: CITES and the hawksbill sea turtle ...... 54 (2000/C 280 E/054) E-2492/99 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the Commission Subject: Production of counterfeit goods in CEECs ...... 54 (2000/C 280 E/055) E-2493/99 by Dominique Souchet to the Commission Subject: Export refunds for processed food products ...... 55 (2000/C 280 E/056) E-2505/99 by Caroline Jackson to the Commission Subject: Water fluoridation ...... 56 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 280 E/057) E-2507/99 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the Commission Subject: Fishing ...... 57 (2000/C 280 E/058) E-2509/99 by Carmen Fraga Estévez to the Commission Subject: Actual number of fishing vessels using driftnets in 1997 ...... 57 (2000/C 280 E/059) E-2513/99 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Third-country crews on board Community vessels ...... 58 (2000/C 280 E/060) E-2515/99 by Mikko Pesälä to the Commission Subject: Taking processing projects into consideration in the proposal on flax ...... 59 (2000/C 280 E/061) E-2517/99 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: The ‘Sviluppo Italia’ company and breaches of Community rules ...... 60 (2000/C 280 E/062) E-2520/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: New Finnish application concerning egg production aid ...... 61 (2000/C 280 E/063) E-2521/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Egg collection and dating ...... 62 (2000/C 280 E/064) P-2524/99 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Sellafield and Cap de la Hague reprocessing plants ...... 63 (2000/C 280 E/065) E-2530/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Safety at European Union ports ...... 64 (2000/C 280 E/066) E-2534/99 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Free movement of doctors and patient safety ...... 65 (2000/C 280 E/067) E-2537/99 by Michiel van Hulten to the Commission Subject: Support to American agriculture sector ...... 68 (2000/C 280 E/068) P-2540/99 by Patricia McKenna to the Commission Subject: Planned golf course in Doonbeg, Co. Clare, Ireland ...... 68 (2000/C 280 E/069) E-2543/99 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: EU enlargement, free movement of doctors and patient safety ...... 69 (2000/C 280 E/070) E-2544/99 by Samuli Pohjamo and Mikko Pesälä to the Commission Subject: Implementation of TACIS projects in disarray ...... 71 (2000/C 280 E/071) E-2545/99 by Maurizio Turco and Marco Cappato to the Commission Subject: Five-year EU action plan to combat drugs: information and evaluation ...... 72 (2000/C 280 E/072) E-2551/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Financial services ombudsman ...... 73 (2000/C 280 E/073) E-2552/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Possible lower VAT rates on labour intensive services ...... 74 (2000/C 280 E/074) E-2561/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Jurisdiction of deposit insurance ...... 74 (2000/C 280 E/075) E-2562/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Deposit insurance ...... 75 (2000/C 280 E/076) E-2574/99 by Bill Miller to the Commission Subject: Commercial communications rules in Italy ...... 75 (2000/C 280 E/077) P-2580/99 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission Subject: Community programme ECIP ...... 76 (2000/C 280 E/078) E-2599/99 by Guido Podestà to the Commission Subject: ECIP ...... 77 Joint answer to Written Questions P-2580/99 and E-2599/99 ...... 77 (2000/C 280 E/079) P-2581/99 by Maurizio Turco to the Commission Subject: Disciplinary inquiries concerning Community officials since 1 January 1998 ...... 78 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 280 E/080) E-2593/99 by Daniel Hannan to the Council Subject: Code of Conduct on arms sales ...... 78 (2000/C 280 E/081) E-2596/99 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Authors of Corpus Juris ...... 79 (2000/C 280 E/082) P-2605/99 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Structural Funds 2000-2005/7 Objective 1, Merseyside ...... 80 (2000/C 280 E/083) E-2612/99 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: More stringent intervention criteria for cereals ...... 80 (2000/C 280 E/084) E-2613/99 by Horst Schnellhardt to the Commission Subject: Pharmaceuticals for veterinary medicine ...... 81 (2000/C 280 E/085) E-2616/99 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Agri-environment expenditure ...... 83 (2000/C 280 E/086) E-2618/99 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Fundamental Rights ...... 84 (2000/C 280 E/087) E-2620/99 by Robert Sturdy to the Commission Subject: Approval system for veterinary medicines ...... 85 (2000/C 280 E/088) E-2621/99 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: Bringing the rules of the Spanish Swimming Federation allowing no more than two non-Spanish players to play in the national water polo league into line with Community law ...... 86 (2000/C 280 E/089) E-2624/99 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: New legislation regarding foreigners in Romania ...... 87 (2000/C 280 E/090) E-2630/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Granting of protected designation of origin to the traditional balsamic vinegars of Modena and Reggio .. 88 (2000/C 280 E/091) E-2631/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Granting of protected designation of origin to the cake known as ‘Spongata tipica emiliana’, produced in the provinces of Reggio Emilia and Parma ...... 89 (2000/C 280 E/092) E-2632/99 by W.G. van Velzen to the Commission Subject: Millennium-compliance of the Albanian aviation sector ...... 90 (2000/C 280 E/093) P-2634/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Compensation of EU citizens in the case of road accidents in Switzerland ...... 91 (2000/C 280 E/094) E-2640/99 by Antonios Trakatellis, Ioannis Marínos and Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Legal arrangements for the awarding of contracts and the construction quality of projects in Greece ... 92 (2000/C 280 E/095) E-2648/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Pollution by electromagnetic waves ...... 93 (2000/C 280 E/096) E-2656/99 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Compensation of EU citizens in the case of road accidents in Switzerland ...... 95 (2000/C 280 E/097) P-2660/99 by Ari Vatanen to the Council Subject: Development of democracy in Belarus ...... 96 (2000/C 280 E/098) E-2665/99 by Yasmine Boudjenah to the Commission Subject: Restructuring of ABB Alstom Power ...... 97 (2000/C 280 E/099) E-2667/99 by Olivier Dupuis to the Council Subject: Prospects of Azerbaijan joining the Council of Europe and development of EU/Azerbaijan relations .... 97 (2000/C 280 E/100) E-2668/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Regulations on advertisements during election campaigns ...... 98 (2000/C 280 E/101) E-2669/99 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the Commission Subject: State aid to Philipp Holzmann AG ...... 99 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 280 E/102) P-2670/99 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Resignation of the Director-General of Social Affairs and Employment ...... 100 (2000/C 280 E/103) E-2676/99 by Malcolm Harbour to the Commission Subject: State aid to the car industry ...... 100 (2000/C 280 E/104) E-2683/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Competition law and the Spanish electricity sector ...... 101 (2000/C 280 E/105) E-2685/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Damage done to the Pontine coast in Italy by the Lazio regional authorities ...... 101 (2000/C 280 E/106) E-2686/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Compliance with the nitrates directive by the Flemish Region ...... 103 (2000/C 280 E/107) P-2689/99 by Ingo Friedrich to the Commission Subject: Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (COM(98) 76): pollutants (Article 2(27) in conjunction with Annex VIII) ...... 104 (2000/C 280 E/108) P-2690/99 by Thierry La Perriere to the Council Subject: EU-Turkish relations, human rights, and Christian minorities ...... 105 (2000/C 280 E/109) P-2693/99 by Lucio Manisco to the Council Subject: The Russian Federation’s ultimatum to the city of Grozny ...... 106 (2000/C 280 E/110) P-2694/99 by Jas Gawronski to the Commission Subject: Measures to resolve the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea ...... 107 (2000/C 280 E/111) P-2696/99 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Internal market: Restrictive practices in car sales ...... 107 (2000/C 280 E/112) E-2698/99 by Ole Krarup to the Commission Subject: Control over currency reserves ...... 109 (2000/C 280 E/113) E-2701/99 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Legal action on British beef in the French market ...... 109 (2000/C 280 E/114) E-2712/99 by Pernille Frahm to the Commission Subject: Working time directive ...... 110 (2000/C 280 E/115) E-2716/99 by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann to the Commission Subject: Human rights violations in Iran ...... 110 (2000/C 280 E/116) E-2717/99 by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann to the Commission Subject: Human rights violations in Iran ...... 111 (2000/C 280 E/117) E-2720/99 by Michael Cashman to the Commission Subject: Money transactions ...... 111 (2000/C 280 E/118) E-2722/99 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Protection of the Iberian wolf ...... 112 (2000/C 280 E/119) E-2723/99 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Regeneration of fishing grounds ...... 113 (2000/C 280 E/120) E-2724/99 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Aeolus project ...... 114 (2000/C 280 E/121) E-2725/99 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Accident rate in the fishing industry ...... 114 (2000/C 280 E/122) E-2726/99 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Deforestation in Amazonia ...... 115 (2000/C 280 E/123) E-2729/99 by Pervenche Berès to the Commission Subject: Recognition of the seniority of civil servants from EEA countries ...... 117 (2000/C 280 E/124) E-2732/99 by Luisa Morgantini to the Commission Subject: Nicaragua: corruption and EU aid ...... 118 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 280 E/125) E-2734/99 by Carlo Fatuzzo to the Commission Subject: Italian law which discriminates against disabled persons over the age of 65 ...... 118 (2000/C 280 E/126) E-2736/99 by Carlo Fatuzzo to the Commission Subject: Retired widow Mrs Maria Luisa Bolzoni 16-year wait for pension ...... 119 (2000/C 280 E/127) E-2738/99 by Stefano Zappalà and Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: Credit institutions ...... 120 (2000/C 280 E/128) E-2741/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Initiatives aimed at promoting multiculturalism embracing the protection of regional identities as well as the protection of the identities of citizens who are immigrants resident in the Member States of the Union .... 121 (2000/C 280 E/129) E-2747/99 by Gérard Deprez to the Council Subject: Common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system ...... 122 (2000/C 280 E/130) E-2749/99 by Gérard Deprez to the Commission Subject: European campaign against violence against women ...... 122 (2000/C 280 E/131) E-2753/99 by Ole Krarup to the Commission Subject: Criminal use of large denomination euro notes ...... 123 (2000/C 280 E/132) E-2760/99 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: The Tirana-Kukes-Prizren-Pristina road link ...... 124 (2000/C 280 E/133) E-2763/99 by Marco Cappato to the Commission Subject: EU lump-sum contribution to the UNDCP ...... 124 (2000/C 280 E/134) E-2764/99 by Marco Cappato to the Commission Subject: JHA cooperation programmes: reports, evaluation and rights of the defence ...... 125 (2000/C 280 E/135) P-2770/99 by Alima Boumediene-Thiery to the Council Subject: Readmission clauses ...... 126 (2000/C 280 E/136) E-2780/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Price support measures for juicing oranges in Greece ...... 127 (2000/C 280 E/137) E-2781/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Support measures for the marketing of oranges in Greece ...... 127 (2000/C 280 E/138) E-2787/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Community funding for the school of Sardinian language and culture in Quartu S. Elena ...... 128 (2000/C 280 E/139) P-2788/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: Discrimination of the remote and peripheral regions of the EU assessing the research task ‘Climate varia- bility and abrupt climate change’ of the EESD programme ...... 129 (2000/C 280 E/140) P-2789/99 by Paul Coûteaux to the Commission Subject: The directive on labelling and the sale of French-labelled products in France ...... 129 (2000/C 280 E/141) E-2793/99 by Herbert Bösch to the Commission Subject: Anti-xenophobia project ...... 130 (2000/C 280 E/142) E-2794/99 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Publication and dissemination of the whole package of EU Common Fisheries Policy measures on conser- vation of fisheries resources ...... 131 (2000/C 280 E/143) E-2795/99 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Aid to the European ship-building industry ...... 132 (2000/C 280 E/144) P-2799/99 by Nelly Maes to the Commission Subject: Treatment of Leonard Peltier ...... 133 (2000/C 280 E/145) E-2802/99 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Úbeda and Baeza: World Heritage ...... 134 (2000/C 280 E/146) E-2805/99 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: EQUAL Community initiative ...... 135 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 280 E/147) E-2808/99 by Yasmine Boudjenah to the Commission Subject: European legislation on labelling of LPG vehicles ...... 135 (2000/C 280 E/148) E-2810/99 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Protocol on improved protection and respect for the welfare of animals ...... 136 (2000/C 280 E/149) E-2815/99 by Jan Wiersma to the Commission Subject: The question of the Roma ...... 137 (2000/C 280 E/150) E-2824/99 by Elisabeth Schroedter to the Commission Subject: Transport of large quantities of dangerous waste from Hungary into EU countries ...... 139 (2000/C 280 E/151) E-2827/99 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Commission Subject: Looting and trafficking in cultural objects of value in Kosovo ...... 140 (2000/C 280 E/152) E-2829/99 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Policy competences under the Treaty of Amsterdam ...... 141 (2000/C 280 E/153) E-2830/99 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Annual review of the implementation of the subsidiarity principle ...... 142 (2000/C 280 E/154) E-2831/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: Evaluations of the current research into climate change ...... 142 (2000/C 280 E/155) E-2832/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: Gaps in research into climate change ...... 143 (2000/C 280 E/156) E-2842/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: Including research tasks 2.1.3 ‘Climate change prediction and scenarios’ in the Second Call for proposals 143 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2832/99 and E-2842/99 ...... 143 (2000/C 280 E/157) E-2833/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: Strategic reasons for undertaking research on climate change ...... 143 (2000/C 280 E/158) E-2834/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: Approximate amounts of funding for research directly linked to climate change ...... 144 (2000/C 280 E/159) E-2836/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: Future of research on climate change ...... 144 (2000/C 280 E/160) E-2837/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: Areas of climate-related research in previous programmes no longer included ...... 144 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2836/99 and E-2837/99 ...... 144 (2000/C 280 E/161) E-2841/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: Priority given to research tasks relating to the Arctic and polar regions ...... 145 (2000/C 280 E/162) E-2843/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: Climate changes and variations on the mainland of the European continent ...... 145 (2000/C 280 E/163) E-2844/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: EU-supported research on climate change ...... 145 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2843/99 and E-2844/99 ...... 145 (2000/C 280 E/164) E-2845/99 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the Commission Subject: Restructuring of the European Community Humanitarian Office ...... 146 (2000/C 280 E/165) E-2848/99 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission Subject: Requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands ...... 146 (2000/C 280 E/166) E-2849/99 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission Subject: Access to Social Insurance (Additional Categories of Persons) Decree ...... 147 (2000/C 280 E/167) E-2851/99 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission Subject: Discrimination against EU citizens in implementation of the Netherlands Benefit Entitlement (Residence Status) Act ...... 148 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 280 E/168) E-2852/99 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission Subject: Medical insurance in the European Union ...... 149 (2000/C 280 E/169) E-2856/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: The Commission’s approach to employment policy ...... 149 (2000/C 280 E/170) E-2857/99 by James Nicholson to the Council Subject: World Conference on Education for All 1990 ...... 150 (2000/C 280 E/171) E-2867/99 by Nelly Maes to the Commission Subject: Discrimination among pigeon fanciers in the border region between the Netherlands and Belgium .... 150 (2000/C 280 E/172) P-2868/99 by Marco Pannella to the Council Subject: The cases of Mrs Flora Brovina, Mr Albin Kurti and Mr Ukshin Hoti ...... 151 (2000/C 280 E/173) E-2869/99 by Frédérique Ries to the Commission Subject: Cost of sending letters from and within Belgium ...... 152 (2000/C 280 E/174) E-0004/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Cobalt and nickel used in dentistry ...... 153 (2000/C 280 E/175) E-0007/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Measures to combat drugs in the Region of Lazio ...... 154 (2000/C 280 E/176) P-0009/00 by Sérgio Marques to the Commission Subject: Disaster in Venezuela ...... 155 (2000/C 280 E/177) E-0010/00 by Ole Krarup to the Council Subject: Taxation of savings income of EU staff ...... 157 (2000/C 280 E/178) E-0012/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Implementation of the ‘television without frontiers’ directive ...... 157 (2000/C 280 E/179) E-0014/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Breach of Directive 89/391/EEC on the improvement of health and safety of workers ...... 158 (2000/C 280 E/180) E-0016/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: News concerning the rules on state aid to undertakings in deprived urban areas ...... 158 (2000/C 280 E/181) E-0020/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Council Subject: The outermost regions and the allocation of structural funds ...... 159 (2000/C 280 E/182) P-0023/00 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Leader + ...... 160 (2000/C 280 E/183) E-0027/00 by Nelly Maes and Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Human rights in Turkey ...... 161 (2000/C 280 E/184) E-0028/00 by Nelly Maes and Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Human rights in Turkey ...... 162 (2000/C 280 E/185) E-0030/00 by Marianne Eriksson to the Commission Subject: Monitoring of the referendum in Western Sahara ...... 163 (2000/C 280 E/186) E-0031/00 by Anna Karamanou to the Council Subject: Nuclear threat of Akkuyu ...... 163 (2000/C 280 E/187) E-0036/00 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: Constanta-Trieste oil pipeline project ...... 164 (2000/C 280 E/188) P-0056/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: The choice of cultural and ethnic categories on equal opportunities forms ...... 165 (2000/C 280 E/189) P-0062/00 by Evelyne Gebhardt to the Commission Subject: Increase in air fares ...... 166 (2000/C 280 E/190) P-0063/00 by Michael Cashman to the Commission Subject: Reduction of VAT on repairs to historic buildings ...... 167 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 280 E/191) P-0064/00 by Peter Skinner to the Commission Subject: Definition of fundamental change in pharmaceutical products ...... 168 (2000/C 280 E/192) E-0069/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Checks on data exchange and telecommunications in the EU Member States ...... 169 (2000/C 280 E/193) P-0070/00 by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo to the Commission Subject: EU relations with Libya ...... 170 (2000/C 280 E/194) E-0075/00 by Gérard Caudron to the Commission Subject: Question of Cypriot and Maltese flags of convenience following the wreck of the Erika ...... 171 (2000/C 280 E/195) E-0078/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: European initiatives to celebrate the work of the writer Giovannino Guareschi ...... 172 (2000/C 280 E/196) P-0080/00 by Mary Banotti to the Commission Subject: European Medicinal Evaluation Agency (EMEA) ...... 172 (2000/C 280 E/197) E-0081/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Proposals for amending Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products ...... 173 (2000/C 280 E/198) E-0082/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Lack of transparency in respect of projects funded by the EU ...... 174 (2000/C 280 E/199) E-0083/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the Commission Subject: Hawsbill sea turtle ...... 175 (2000/C 280 E/200) E-0094/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Possible merger between the Astano and Bazan state shipbuilding companies in Galicia ...... 176 (2000/C 280 E/201) E-0095/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Construction of vessels by the Astano shipbuilding company ...... 176 (2000/C 280 E/202) E-0097/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Involvement of the Spanish Autonomous Communities in Union institutions ...... 177 (2000/C 280 E/203) P-0101/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Council Subject: EU asylum policy ...... 177 (2000/C 280 E/204) E-0104/00 by Markus Ferber to the Commission Subject: Allocation of Media II Programme appropriations to different Member States ...... 178 (2000/C 280 E/205) E-0113/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: Cancellation of debt of the poorest countries by EU Member States ...... 179 (2000/C 280 E/206) E-0114/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: EU plans with regard to the WTO following the failure of the Seattle Summit ...... 179 (2000/C 280 E/207) E-0115/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: Unemployment and treaty reform ...... 180 (2000/C 280 E/208) E-0125/00 by Neil MacCormick to the Council Subject: Arms exports ...... 181 (2000/C 280 E/209) P-0134/00 by Joost Lagendijk to the Commission Subject: Influencing of staff of DG XX (Financial Control) during inquiries by the European Court of Auditors . . 181 (2000/C 280 E/210) E-0135/00 by Gerhard Hager to the Council Subject: Progress in setting-up the European Police College ...... 182 (2000/C 280 E/211) E-0137/00 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Rescue flight contracts with the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions ...... 183 (2000/C 280 E/212) E-0138/00 by Claude Moraes to the Commission Subject: Human rights violations in Tunisia ...... 184 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 280 E/213) P-0143/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Town planning in an area with high seismic activity ...... 184 (2000/C 280 E/214) P-0144/00 by Erik Meijer to the Council Subject: Extension of European arms embargo against Indonesia ...... 185 (2000/C 280 E/215) E-0145/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: Failure of Commission to quote references on correspondence ...... 186 (2000/C 280 E/216) P-0147/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Operational problems affecting the TAXIS programme ...... 186 (2000/C 280 E/217) E-0154/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Compensation for good damage caused by the abolition of customs formalities at the internal frontiers . 187 (2000/C 280 E/218) E-0155/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Commission views on strictly limiting public access to policy documents ...... 188 (2000/C 280 E/219) P-0159/00 by Carl Lang to the Commission Subject: Flooding in the South of France ...... 189 (2000/C 280 E/220) P-0161/00 by Ole Andreasen to the Commission Subject: Information policy ...... 189 (2000/C 280 E/221) P-0162/00 by Françoise Grossetête to the Commission Subject: Common VAT system Deductions ...... 190 (2000/C 280 E/222) E-0166/00 by Rosa Díez González, Fernando Pérez Royo and Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Effects of state aid on the Spanish electricity sector ...... 191 (2000/C 280 E/223) E-0168/00 by Alejandro Agag Longo to the Commission Subject: Road blockade by French lorries ...... 192 (2000/C 280 E/224) E-0170/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Community rules on weekly rest days on religious grounds ...... 193 (2000/C 280 E/225) E-0171/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Night charges imposed by pharmacies ...... 193 (2000/C 280 E/226) E-0172/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Vital institutional importance of the year 1999 in the history of the European Community ...... 194 (2000/C 280 E/227) E-0177/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Making low-cost health insurance subject to free competition ...... 195 (2000/C 280 E/228) E-0182/00 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Exclusion from the right to deduct VAT on cars in Austria ...... 195 (2000/C 280 E/229) E-0184/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Failure of Greece to comply with Community legislation ...... 196 (2000/C 280 E/230) E-0185/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Failure of Greece to comply with Community Directive 92/43 ...... 197 (2000/C 280 E/231) E-0192/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Cellular phones and health risks ...... 197 (2000/C 280 E/232) P-0201/00 by Joan Colom i Naval to the Commission Subject: Commercial breaks in television schedules in Spain ...... 198 (2000/C 280 E/233) P-0202/00 by Dominique Souchet to the Commission Subject: Customs procedures employed against Saint Pierre and Miquelon ...... 199 (2000/C 280 E/234) E-0205/00 by Caroline Jackson to the Commission Subject: Possible EU legislation on dangerous sports ...... 200 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 280 E/235) E-0212/00 by Gérard Caudron to the Commission Subject: Aid to the iron and steel industry ...... 200 (2000/C 280 E/236) P-0222/00 by Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo to the Commission Subject: Duty of the Member States to submit reports ...... 201 (2000/C 280 E/237) E-0228/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Breach of the rules of competition in the selling of pet food in Spain ...... 201 (2000/C 280 E/238) P-0240/00 by Hans Modrow to the Commission Subject: CDU funding scandal ...... 202 (2000/C 280 E/239) E-0256/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: European Union publicity material ...... 203 (2000/C 280 E/240) E-0257/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Intergovernmental Conference ...... 204 (2000/C 280 E/241) P-0261/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: Slaughter of animals at Eid-el-Kabir ...... 204 (2000/C 280 E/242) E-0266/00 by Reino Paasilinna to the Commission Subject: Future of European stamps of philatelic value ...... 205 (2000/C 280 E/243) P-0283/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: CITES Listing of basking sharks ...... 206 (2000/C 280 E/244) E-0286/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Difficulties affecting the Rome newspaper Il Tempo ...... 206 (2000/C 280 E/245) P-0305/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the Commission Subject: Social benefits ...... 207 (2000/C 280 E/246) P-0333/00 by Barbara Weiler to the Commission Subject: Rules governing the award of public contracts ...... 208 (2000/C 280 E/247) E-0335/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Increasing the national guaranteed quantity of cotton for Greece ...... 209 (2000/C 280 E/248) E-0356/00 by Elisa Damião to the Commission Subject: European list of occupational diseases ...... 209 (2000/C 280 E/249) P-0370/00 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the Commission Subject: Blockades by French lorry drivers ...... 210 (2000/C 280 E/250) P-0394/00 by Marielle de Sarnez to the Commission Subject: Request for information on two complaints lodged with the Commission against certain provisions of the French Law of 27 July 1999 establishing universal health cover ...... 211 (2000/C 280 E/251) P-0404/00 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission Subject: Equal treatment for men and women ...... 212 (2000/C 280 E/252) P-0413/00 by Struan Stevenson to the Commission Subject: French lorry drivers’ industrial action ...... 212 (2000/C 280 E/253) E-0433/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Prevention of damage to the muscles and bone structure of school-age children ...... 213 (2000/C 280 E/254) E-0435/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Commission proposal on the European Parliament in the planned reform of the Treaties ...... 214 (2000/C 280 E/255) E-0456/00 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Answer to Written Question E-1877/99: structural policy labour market ...... 215 (2000/C 280 E/256) E-0457/00 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: ESF written question E-1877/99 ...... 215 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 280 E/257) E-0458/00 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Structural policy and employment ...... 216 (2000/C 280 E/258) E-0493/00 by Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: Proper execution of an invitation to tender for the supply of meal vouchers, issued by the Italian Ministry of the Treasury ...... 217 (2000/C 280 E/259) E-0545/00 by William Newton Dunn to the Commission Subject: British stamp duty discriminating against British businesses ...... 217 (2000/C 280 E/260) E-0561/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: EU respect for powers and responsibilities ...... 218 (2000/C 280 E/261) P-0667/00 by Christoph Konrad to the Commission Subject: Set-aside premiums for RWE and Rheinbraun (Germany) ...... 218 (2000/C 280 E/262) P-0773/00 by Astrid Thors to the Commission Subject: Importing reindeer meat from Russia to countries in the EU ...... 219 (2000/C 280 E/263) P-0829/00 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Field margin regulations leading to environmental damage ...... 219 (2000/C 280 E/264) P-0929/00 by Christoph Konrad to the Commission Subject: Set aside premiums for the German firms RWE and Rheinbraun ...... 220
EN 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/1
I
(Information)
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER
(2000/C 280 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1829/99
by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council
(15 October 1999)
Subject: Smoking as a cause of ill-health in the world and EU policy
Apart from causing cancer, fatal heart disease and a host of other illnesses, smoking is now being blamed for male impotence in smokers between the ages of 21 and 75, according to studies by the BMA. At the same time, research by the Athens Medical School has revealed that medical students are unaware of the harmful effects of smoking and that one in two smokes regularly. It should be pointed out that in Greece alone the number of young smokers increases by some 50 000 a year. In the EU the tobacco industry spends as much in one day alone on advertising its products as is spent in one year on information campaigns against smoking.
In view of the above, will the Council say: What action is it taking, what resources does it have available and what policy is it pursuing in order to address the prime cause of ill-health that can be tackled and protect the health of European citizens and young people in particular?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
Community action in this field complements the action taken by Member States. Within the framework of the powers granted to it, the Community pays particular attention to combating smoking and treats it as a priority.
Since 1986, various measures to combat cancer, and more recently the action plan to combat cancer adopted in 1996 and currently underway, have provided for specific steps to combat smoking. Similarly, the action programme on health promotion, information, education and training also targets tobacco abuse. It is planned to incorporate all vertical programmes in the field of health into the framework programme on health to be proposed to the European Parliament and the Council in the first quarter of the year.
Moreover, the Council, acting on proposals from the Commission, has already adopted, in 1989 and 1990, internal market Directives on labelling and tar yield, which do much to further that objective. Furthermore, a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council was forwarded to those bodies on 7 January 2000. That Directive concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and adminis- trative provisions of the Member States regarding the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products is currently being examined. C 280 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
More recently, on 6 July 1998, the Council, jointly with the European Parliament, adopted Directive 98/43/EC relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products, which is due to enter into force on 30 July 2001 at the latest. This Directive should have a particular impact on the young.
Since 1994, the Council has established, in the context of the Regulation on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco, a Community fund financing tobacco research and information, half the resources of which are assigned to information projects on the dangers of smoking, aimed primarily at young people.
Finally, further to the Commission’s communication of December 1996 on the present and proposed Community role in combating tobacco consumption and the Commission’s September 1999 report to the Council and the European Parliament on progress achieved in relation to public health protection from the harmful effects of tobacco consumption, the Council at its meeting on 18 November 1999, adopted conclusions on combating tobacco consumption and held a policy debate focusing particularly on protecting young people from the harmful effects of tobacco consumption and on the European Union’s action in the international context.
This was an open debate.
Regarding the external angle, on 22 October 1999 the Council adopted a Decision authorising the Commission, for matters falling within the sphere of Community competence, to open negotiations, in the context of the World Health Organisation, on an International Framework Convention for Tobacco Control and related protocols.
(2000/C 280 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1912/99
by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 October 1999)
Subject: Substandard road construction funded by the 2nd Community Support Framework for Greece
In reply to my previous question (P-3016/98) (1), the Commission acknowledged that there were wide- spread problems with substandard road-building in Greece funded by the 2nd Community Support Framework and assured me that it would monitor the question closely and would not fail to apply the relevant Community rules, if necessary.
Will the Commission say whether it has any further information concerning the extent of substandard workmanship in all the projects funded in Greece by the 2nd CSF? Does that information show that the proportion of substandard work has fallen and that Greece has taken the necessary measures to remedy it? If not, will the Commission say what steps it will take to ensure that this tremendously important issue is now dealt with seriously and that those responsible are held to account?
(1) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 42.
Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(18 February 2000)
According to the information received from the Greek authorities, an independent quality control mechanism (ESPEL) has checked 1 025 of the projects part-financed in Greece under the second Community support framework for the 1994-99 programming period, including road projects. From its beginning work in January 1998 up to June 1999, half its 1 189 site visits resulted in the projects being checked by sampling while the others were checked systematically between October 1998 and June 1999. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/3
The results were as follows: 224 projects were in order or had minor problems which will be corrected by the contractors (first category projects), 272 projects suffered from major shortcomings without safety implications but which will involve higher maintenance costs: these additional expenses will be deducted from the payments to the contractors concerned (second category projects), 19 of the projects checked had serious defects which could not be corrected: they will have to be rebuilt by the contractors at their own expense (third category projects).
The Commission considers that it is too early to be able to say that there has already been an improvement in the quality of work. It is nevertheless convinced that, in the long term, the work of ESPEL will result in improvements in the situation.
Following the various ESPEL reports, the Greek authorities took the following measures. As it had promised, the national Ministry for Economic Affairs (MEN) sent the public services managing the projects all the individual ESPEL reports showing quality defects and asked them to take the action provided for by the law. MEN also reported the second and third category projects mentioned above to the public works inspectorate for it to check on the action taken by the managing departments, with particular regard to implementation of the various measures provided for by law, including financial penalties. In the case of the projects in the third category, MEN also automatically sent the file to the public prosecutor.
The Commission does not at present have concrete information regarding the various results. Nevertheless, the Greek authorities have told it that, in several cases, defects have already been corrected or the payments for the work in question reduced. Moreover, the checks carried out by the inspectorate mean that the files on the civil engineering firms which do not comply with the procedure can be updated.
The Commission will ensure that the Greek authorities notify it formally of the irregularities arising from this situation under Regulation (EC) 1681/94 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field (1).
The Commission intends to ask the Greek authorities to monitor this matter and its budgetary consequences carefully.
(1) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.
(2000/C 280 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1955/99
by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission
(5 November 1999)
Subject: Kosovo Agenda 2000
As part of the reconstruction effort in Kosovo, the EU has provided financial assistance running into billions. The same is true for the reconstruction following the devastating earthquake in Turkey. These measures were decided on after the adoption of Agenda 2000. In view of this, can the Commission answer the following:
1. How much will the EU and/or their Member States invest in the reconstruction of Kosovo and what is the duration of the aid programmes?
2. What is the effect of these measures likely to be on the future budgets of the EU?
3. Does the Commission consider that the plans for financing the Agenda 2000 need to be reviewed?
4. If not, how does the Commission explain the fact that financial assistance will have no effect on the plans for financing Agenda 2000? C 280 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(28 January 2000)
1. The budgetary authority agreed to allocate € 137 million in the budgetary year 1999 out of budget chapter B7-54 for reconstruction projects in Kosovo. The Commission has made efforts to implement this. The amounts do not include other Commission funding related to the Kosovo crisis, like humanitarian aid provided by the European Community humanitarian office (ECHO) (€ 378 million in 1999) or the exceptional € 100 million budgetary support offered in 1999 out of budget chapter B7-54 to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Montenegro and out of budget chapter B7-50 to Albania in order to enable these countries to cope with the additional burden on their budget caused by the massive influx of refugees from Kosovo. Additional macro-financial assistance was also granted to FYROM and Bosnia and Herzegovina whose economies suffered from the crisis in the region.
The Commission in November 1999 announced that it would propose a major assistance and recovery programme for the Western Balkans, including Kosovo, for the years 2000 to 2006. It suggested a total of € 5 500 million, but the detailed assessment of needs is to be completed in the spring 2000 for consideration in the 2001 budget procedure and will be available in time for the presentation of the new programme.
The volume of assistance the Member States pledged for the reconstruction of Kosovo is set out in the tables that were drawn up after the Kosovo donors conferences of July and November 1999, and is available to be consulted on the internet site for South East Europe reconstruction jointly managed by the Commission and the World Bank (http://www.seerecon.org/Calendar/pledgeeuro.pdf and http://www.seer- econ.org/Calendar/SDC/sdc-pledges-euro.pdf).
2. to 4. € 500 million was initially foreseen by the Commission for Kosovo reconstruction in 2000 in mid-year 1999, some € 440 million more than foreseen in the Commission’s preliminary draft budget of April 1999. The final assessment of needs was to be made for 2000 during the budgetary procedure. The Commission presented its views on the impact of the Kosovo financing on the budget through the proposal of letter of amendment No 4/2000, at the end of October 1999. The Commission proposed to react in at least two stages: first covering the 2000 budget only, and later, during the preparation of the 2001 preliminary draft budget, and once exact assessments of the needs and the funding by other donors was known, for the rest of the period covered by Agenda 2000. A more co-operative economic development programme will gradually replace the urgent reconstruction.
The Commission proposed a combination of three funding sources for the extra finance needed: redeployment in so far as feasible, partial use of the flexibility instrument and a revision of the financial perspective. The budgetary authority agreed € 240 million for direct aid to Kosovo reconstruction in December 1999, with further funding from humanitarian aid and from carry-overs to bring the total available for Kosovo in 2000 to € 360 million. It decided to call fully on the flexibility reserve and to re- deploy funding within heading 4 to achieve this.
(2000/C 280 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2014/99
by Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 November 1999)
Subject: Habit-forming substances added to cigarettes by the tobacco industry
A report published by three scientific organisations (ASH: Action on Smoking and Health, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program) shows that the tobacco industry adds chemical substances to cigarettes to make them more addictive. The report is available on the Internet: http://www.ash.org.uk/papers/additives.html.
Is the Commission aware of these findings? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/5
What is the Commission’s attitude to this practice on the part of the tobacco industry?
In the light of the Commission’s initiatives in respect of public health and consumer protection, is it time for a Commission inquiry into these practices in the European tobacco industry?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(16 December 1999)
The Commission is indeed aware of the report mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Commission also commented on this issue in its recent report on progress achieved in relation to public health protection from the harmful effects of tobacco consumption (1).
In 1997, the Commission in fact asked all Member States for information concerning their policy in relation to additives contained in cigarettes. Analysis of the responses reveals significant disparities between the rules in force and shows the current legal situation in the Member States as regards additives in tobacco. It has also served as a basis for drawing up an appropriate Community response to eliminate obstacles to free trade within the single market, while at the same time ensuring a high level of public health protection. The resulting proposal was adopted by the Commission on 16 November 1999 (2) and forwarded to Parliament and the Council.
Article 7 of the proposal stipulates that ‘Member States shall require all manufacturers and importers of tobacco products to submit to them a list of all non-tobacco ingredients and constituents, including additives and quantities thereof, used in the manufacture of their tobacco products by brand. This list shall be accompanied by a statement setting out the reasons for the inclusion of such ingredients and constituents in their tobacco products. Member States shall also require manufacturers and importers to provide toxicological data on these non-tobacco ingredients and constituents in burnt and unburned form, and to demonstrate that the said ingredients are safe for the health of the consumer when used as intended in their tobacco products.’
(1) COM(99) 407 final. (2) COM(99) 594 final.
(2000/C 280 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2017/99
by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(28 October 1999)
Subject: Report on quality control of 2nd CSF projects
On 13 October 1998, in reply to my question No E-2176/98 (1), the then Commissioner, Mrs Wulf- Mathies, said that the first ESPEL quarterly report had found that quality problems did exist in various projects and that ESPEL would proceed to carry out systematic and in-depth checks on 2nd CSF projects.
In the light of the large number of accidents on Greek motorways caused by substandard work and inadequate checking systems, will the Commission say what the results of ESPEL’s checks are to date? In which specific projects have substandard work or shortcomings been identified? Have those been rectified by the contractors and at whose expense? What financial, disciplinary, penal or other administrative consequences (e.g. blacklisting) will be imposed on those responsible for the failings and substandard work?
(1) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999, p. 51 and OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 16. C 280 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(21 February 2000)
The Greek authorities have informed the Commission that between July 1998 and July 1999 the independent quality control body ESPEL carried out 339 systematic checks on road projects part-financed in Greece under the second Community support framework (1994-99 programming period). The results were: 34 % of the projects were in order or suffered from minor shortcomings that would be corrected by the contractors (first category); 61 % suffered from major shortcomings without safety implications but entailing additional maintenance costs that would be deducted from the payments to the contractors concerned (second category); 18 projects suffered from serious shortcomings that could not be corrected and rebuilding would have to be effected at the contractors’ expense (third category). A list of these projects, the files for which have been sent to the public prosecutor by the Ministry for Economic Affairs, is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat.
For motorways the situation was: for the Egnatia, of 21 contracts checked 16 fell into the first and 5 into the second category; for PATHE, of 12 contracts checked 8 fell into the first, 3 into the second and 1 into the third category.
The Commission has no detailed information at the moment on the outcome of all these cases. The Greek authorities have told it that in a number of instances the defects have already been corrected or payment for the work in question reduced, and that the checking carried out by the abovementioned inspectors would serve to update the list of public works contractors not conforming with the correct procedures.
The Commission intends asking the Greek authorities for a full review of the situation and detailed information on the penalties to be imposed and their budgetary impact.
(2000/C 280 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2034/99
by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council
(11 November 1999)
Subject: Genetically modified crops
1. What measures does the Council plan to ensure that protection is given to farmers, both organic and conventional, who want to grow crops that are free from contamination from GE pollen from neighbour- ing crops?
2. Will the Council ensure European consumers have the option of consuming food that is free of all genetically modified ingredients, including genetically modified derivatives?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
As regards organic production, the Council would refer the Honourable Member to Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 (1). In adopting this Regulation the Council recognised the principle that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products derived therefrom are not compatible with the organic production method and that, in order to maintain consumer confidence in organic production, GMOs, parts thereof and products derived therefrom should not be used in products labelled as stemming from organic production. Furthermore, this Regulation creates the framework for the subsequent adoption of implementation measures, in accordance with scientific evidence or technical progress, for applying the ban on the use of GMOs and GMO derivatives, in particular with regard to a de minimis threshold for unavoidable contamination which must not be exceeded. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/7
As regards conventional agriculture, it is recalled that, at its meetings in November and December 1998, the Agriculture Council addressed the general issue of the assessment of genetically modified crops in the context of the adoption of a Council Directive on seeds (2). At the time of the adoption of that Directive, the Commission undertook to examine the concept of an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages resulting from the use of seed of genetically modified plant varieties in respect of established agricultural practices, and the possible impact thereof on Community law on agricultural matters.
The Council would draw attention to the existence of Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. A proposal for an amendment to that Directive has been forwarded by the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. The proposal, which has been modified in response to the amendments put forward by the European Parliament in plenary session, provides for a strengthening of the administrative controls laid down by the Directive. The Council would point out that the approval application calls for an evaluation of environmental risks. Such evaluation is based on field tests and on parallel research into the possible release of genetically modified plants or parts thereof into surrounding crop areas. A condition of the approval decision may also make it compulsory to monitor the cultivation and possible release into the environment of GMOs over a number of years and, if need be, to reconsider the situation.
The Council agrees with the Honourable Member that it is of the utmost importance that consumers should have the option of consuming food that is free of all genetically modified ingredients, including genetically modified derivatives.
It might be useful in this respect to make reference to the Environment Council meeting on 24/25 June 1999, at which a common position was reached on the amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, and at which the following issues were highlighted:
the requirement for the clear and unambiguous labelling of such products at all stages of the marketing process;
the need for provisions other than on labelling in order to ensure that GMOs which are placed on the market can be easily traced by the competent authorities.
Finally, the measures to be taken with regard to labelling are regarded as supplementing those laid down by Regulation (EC) No 258/97 (‘Novel foods’) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 on the labelling of certain types of maize and soya.
(1) OJ L 222, 24.8.1999, p. 1. (2) Council Directive 98/95/EC of 14 December 1998 amending, in respect of the consolidation of the internal market, genetically modified plant varieties and plant genetic resources, Directives 66/400/EEC, 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 66/403/EEC, 69/208/EEC, 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC on the marketing of beet seed, fodder plant seed, cereal seed, seed potatoes, seed of oil and fibre plants and vegetable seed and on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species.
(2000/C 280 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2074/99
by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(12 November 1999)
Subject: Market transparency in agriculture
In some respects the internal market does not function at all or functions poorly where the operating resources and inputs needed in agriculture are concerned. This is due partly to the lack of market transparency and partly to the absence or total inadequacy of European Community rules.
Commission research (Eudramat) shows that, as national certification procedures continue to exist, identical drugs are sold at very different prices in the various Member States. A study based on this research indicates a potential saving for health insurance funds, consumers and farmers in Austria of about C 280 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
EUR 1 billion a year. If this is extrapolated to the whole EU market, the present decentralised certification system is costing Europeans up to EUR 35 billion a year. The situation is similar in the case of plant protection products.
1. What measures to increase the transparency of the markets in seed, feedingstuffs and fertilisers are planned?
2. What measures to bring about a functioning internal market in tractors and other agricultural machinery, veterinary medicinal products and plant protection products are planned?
I would appreciate more than just a reference to the present rules.
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(25 January 2000)
Member States and the Commission share on a regular basis information on the net selling price of seeds received by growers, on total quantities harvested, total trade for the marketing year, on stocks as well as on the internal consumption forecasted. This information is assembled at Community level by the Commission and submitted for discussion at the meetings of the management committee for seeds and of the standing group on seeds of the advisory committee on agricultural product health and safety. Any differences in prices of the same species are normally justified by the specific characteristics of the product like varieties or origin, productivity, disease resistance and so on. Therefore the Commission remains convinced that the existing rules ensure a good level of transparency of the market in seeds. On this issue, there are no medium-term proposals planned.
In the field of animal feedingstuff, the Community acts on the basis of harmonised Community legislation, which sets the rules for the placing on the market, for labelling of additives, for raw materials and for compound feedingstuff.
The main objective is to guarantee the safety of use of feedingstuffs, and to inform stockbreeders on the nature and the characteristics of food that they use to feed their animals. Following the dioxin crisis, the Commission submitted to the Council and to the Parliament a working programme in order to improve the tracing back of animal feed and in particular to enhance the safety of animal feedingstuffs by improving control procedures. Moreover, the Commission, in conjunction with the consultative and management committees concerned, carries out a permanent monitoring of the market of animal feedingstuffs.
Harmonised legislation for placing fertilisers on the market exists since 1976, when Council Directive 76/116/EEC of 18 December 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to fertilisers (1) came into effect. Meanwhile, the Directive was amended or adapted to technical progress 17 times and a report by the SLIM (Simplification of legislation for the single market) group in October 1997, which evaluated the performance of the legislation with regard to its transparency and effectiveness, concluded that the legislation operated rather well.
Indeed, more than 90 % of the cross-border trade of fertilisers in the Community is estimated to be by Community fertiliser that falls under Directive 76/116/EEC, and more than 50 % of all fertilisers marketed in the Community carry the label ‘EC-Fertilisers’.
Community fertiliser legislation is complemented by national legislation concerning authorisation for placing on the national market, national or imported fertilisers that are non-Community fertilisers. They concern types of fertilisers for which to date no harmonised regulation exist (for instance organic or organo-mineral fertilisers). However, following a recommendation of the SLIM group, it is planned to include these fertilisers into the harmonised regulation as soon as the current 18 directives have been recast into a single new directive, which constitutes a further improvement of market transparency. Work is in full progress and submission of the recast directives to Council and Parliament is planned for the year 2000.
The process of simplification as well as of adaptation to technical progress is conducted with full consultation of all concerned, including industry, and thus ensures further that the high degree of transparency already in place is being maintained. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/9
Since 1988, Community type approval for wheeled agricultural or a forestry tractor has been optional see Council Directive 74/150/EEC of 4 March 1974 (2). The Commission is working on a complete overhaul of the type approval legislation for tractors to make Community type approval compulsory. This would ensure the single market in this sector. The draft directive will be submitted in 2000 to Council and to Parliament.
The Commission has recently granted a contract to independent management consultants to evaluate the functioning of procedures to authorise medicinal products in the Community. This includes the procedures to evaluate veterinary medicinal products. The consultants are expected to talk to representatives of all Concerned. The report is expected to be ready by the end of 2000. Depending on the outcome of the report the Commission will reconsider existing Community legislation and the authorisation procedures therein.
Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (3), and in particular its Annex VI, provides a harmonised framework for the safety review of active substances and for national authorisations of plant protection products. It has been implemented in national law in all Member States. Working group discussions with Member States are under way to provide guidance on remaining open questions, which concern, for example, parallel imports. Overall, in the sector of plant protection products, a high degree of harmonisation and transparency has been achieved.
(1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1976. (2) OJ L 84, 28.3.1974. (3) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.
(2000/C 280 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2096/99
by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 November 1999)
Subject: The Y2K problem
The YTK problem is caused by the inability of many computer systems correctly to process dates after 31.12.1999, owing to the widespread practice of having only two digits to indicate the year.
Since the problem may have consequences for the internal functioning of the Community institutions and also for the implementation of certain Community policies, such as for example, the internal market, e-commerce, banking transactions, etc., will the Commission say:
1. What measures does it intend to take to address the Y2K problem and publish information about it?
2. How does it intend to notify the authorities of the Member States and public opinion about matters which fall within the Community’s purview and to take coordinating measures, where appropriate?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(10 January 2000)
The Commission has published on the Europa server at http://europa.eu.int/comm/y2k/preparation a summary of the measures it has taken to ensure its own internal preparedness and continued functioning.
As for the other institutions, the inter-institutional committee for informatics (CII) continues to co-ordinate year 2000 (Y2K) activities to ensure a common approach to the problem. The Commission also organised in July 1999 a symposium with Member States and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) on the adaptation of European information systems to the year 2000 and the Euro. C 280 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
In general, the responsibility for resolving the Y2K problem within the Community as a whole lies with the individual enterprises and organisations concerned, whose progress is monitored by Member State authorities. Nevertheless, in recognition of the need for co-ordination between countries in critical services with a cross-border aspect, such as finance, telecommunications, energy, and transport, the Commission has carried out several activities.
Firstly, workshops involving Community industry and public authorities have been taking place since 1997. In particular, two large workshops with infrastructure providers from all major sectors throughout the Community were organised in April 1999 and September 1999 to examine cross-border issues, especially contingency planning. The results of these workshops are posted on the Commission’s special Y2K website at http://www.ispo.cec.be/y2keuro/y2k.htm.
Secondly, since July 1999, the national Y2K co-ordinators in the Community and European economic area (EEA) countries have met on a monthly basis to share information and exchange ideas on how to address various issues associated with the problem. Specific attention has been paid to the co-ordination of contingency plans between Member States.
Finally, the Commission has recently published communications (1) which provide an overview of the evolution of the situation of critical infrastructure sectors in the Community in the first, second and third quarters of 1999.
(1) COM(99) 545 final COM(99) 639 final COM(99) 651 final.
(2000/C 280 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2129/99
by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(24 November 1999)
Subject: Fisheries policy of the European Commission in the next Millennium Round
What is the policy of the European Commission in the next Millennium Round regarding the Common Fisheries Policy?
Having in mind that some of the contracting parties of the WTO and some NGOs criticise the Common Fisheries Policy, has the Commission planned a negotiating strategy to counterbalance this criticism?
Is the Commission ready to stand and follow a strategy that points out the positive effects that the Common Fisheries Policy has in the management of the fisheries stocks and in the contribution of the economic development of some developing countries?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(11 January 2000)
Notwithstanding the unsuccessful outcome of the Third WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle as regards timing and subjects for negotiation, the Commission has performed preparatory work on a possible Community negotiating strategy for further trade liberalisation.
In its communication on ‘The EU approach to the WTO Millennium Round (1)’ the Commission set out a possible Community agenda for the round, which should among other things include further liberalisation or rule-making in the fields of agriculture and services, non-agricultural tariffs, investment, competition, trade facilitation, and trade and environment. Results in all areas should support and contribute to sustainable development. This comprehensive programme was endorsed by the Council in its conclusions of 25 October 1999. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/11
In spite of the current uncertainty about the adjourned round, the Commission believes that the negotiations should cover several subjects that relate to fisheries, including tariffs, subsidies, services, investment and trade and environment. Rather than isolate discussions on fisheries, however, it is in the Community interest to deal with fisheries in the context of the negotiations of all non-agricultural products, regarding market access and other negotiating areas as appropriate.
The Community believes that the Millennium Round should provide the opportunity to integrate considerations of environmental protection and sustainable utilisation of resources into all aspects of World trade organisation (WTO) negotiations, including fisheries.
To ensure that the WTO contributes positively to the pursuit of sustainable development world-wide, the Community is proposing that ‘WTO members should take the decision to enter into a commitment to ensure duty-free market access no later than the end of the new round for essentially all products exported by the least-developed countries’ (2). This will also apply to fishery products.
(1) COM(99) 331 final. (2) Paragraph 10 of the Council conclusions of 25 October 1999 on the ‘Preparation of the Third WTO Ministerial Conference’.
(2000/C 280 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2156/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission
(24 November 1999)
Subject: Utilisation of structural funds by the Latium Regional Council
Following the reform of the Structural Funds, it would be useful for regional councils in Italy in particular the Latium Regional Council to reorganise their affairs (inter alia taking the lead from examples of good practice identified in other Member States) so as to make it easier for local companies to gain access to such funding. Over recent years a low rate of utilisation of Community funds has been recorded in the Latium region.
Given the above, would the Commission state:
1. whether it can supply details of the utilisation of structural funds to date by the Latium Regional Council, including the uses to which they have been put, in respect of Objectives 2, 3, 4 and 5b;
2. whether there are any studies or documents highlighting examples of good practice in the utilisation of structural funds in other Member States;
3. its general opinion of the utilisation of structural funds in Italy (in particular, in the Latium region), inter alia with reference to the situation in other Member States.
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(24 January 2000)
1. According to the latest information available from the Italian authorities, the state of play regarding the implementation of programmes in the Lazio region is as follows (figures at 30 June 1999) (1).
(%)
Commitments Payments Objective 2 1994-1996 100 86 Objective 2 1997-1999 36 4 (1) Objective 3 1994-1999 88 58 Objective 4 1994-1999 91 30 Objective 5b 1994-1999 85 43
(1) Figures at 31 October 1999. C 280 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
2. The Commission has to date issued four publications describing key projects carried out with Structural Fund support (2). Other booklets on certain Member States are currently being prepared; one on the United Kingdom is scheduled for the end of 1999.
In addition, information concerning the most significant projects carried out in individual Member States (‘success stories’) is available on the Inforegio website (http://www.inforegio.cec.eu.int).
3. Under the partnership approach, the Commission takes every possible step to ensure that full use is made of the resources available from the Structural Funds. Although Italy’s administrative procedures are somewhat slow, it must be acknowledged that the country has achieved undeniable progress in implementing its structural programmes in recent years. This effort to improve matters must, however, be sustained, particularly in view of the new programming period and the new management mechanisms, which hinge on a greater degree of subsidiarity.
It should be pointed out that, in terms of its implementation capacity, the Lazio region has achieved the average rate for Italian non-Objective 1 regions.
(1) The figures refer to the commitments and payments made to final recipients, expressed as a percentage of the total cost of the programmes approved under each objective. (2) The publications concerned are: ‘Job challenge: ten innovative projects tell their stories’ ISBN 92-828-4241-X; ‘Regional success stories: profiles of 36 projects in Europe’ ISBN 92-827-6539-3; ‘Deutschlandreise Projekte der EU-Regionalforderung’ ISBN 92-828-2680-5; ‘Tour de France des régions 27 projets soutenus par les Fonds structurels’ ISBN 92-828-2678-3.
(2000/C 280 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2158/99
by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(24 November 1999)
Subject: Regional development funding
1. Is it true that the Directorate-General for Regional Policy recently rejected the Italian Government’s proposals concerning Objective 2?
2. If so, why?
3. Can the Commission state whether the new criteria for the utilisation of structural funds laid down at the Berlin summit, which are different from those in force during the period 1994-1999, are behind that rejection?
4. If so, which Member States would benefit from those new criteria, and which would be penalised?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(21 January 2000)
1. The proposed list of areas eligible for Objective 2 sent by the Italian authorities on 1 October 1999 was found by the Commission to be not acceptable.
2. The proposal was not in compliance with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), under which the areas that satisfy the ‘Community’ criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) must contain at least 50 % of the population eligible for Objective 2 assistance in each Member State. The areas put forward by the Italian authorities in line with the ‘Community’ criteria contained only 2,2 million people (i.e. only 29,6 % of the total eligible population). 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/13
3. The Regulation was adopted unanimously by the Member States and received the assent of the European Parliament. As explained above, the Italian proposal was considered inadmissible not because of the new criteria as such but rather because it was not in compliance with Article 4(4) of the Regulation.
4. The criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) of the Regulation do not penalise any Member State.
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2000/C 280 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2171/99 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 November 1999)
Subject: Interception of telecommunications by British Intelligence Services
In the light of reports that the British Intelligence Services are intercepting all telecommunications to and from Ireland, will the Commission seek to establish what the implications of this action are for the political cohesion of the Union?
Further, what are the implications for the right of commercial undertakings to engage freely in commu- nicating internationally and within the EU, and what are the implications for individual citizens engaged in personal or commercially sensitive communications?
Can the Commission ask the British authorities if the reports are actually true and, if so, if the British are spying on all other Member States of the EU in a similar way?
Could the Commission also state whether such activities are in violation of any EU law?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(27 January 2000)
The Commission has no knowledge of the matters to which the Honourable Member refers.
In any event, the Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.
The Commission nonetheless remains vigilant in defence of Community interests, and condemns any and all threats to the integrity of communications within or exchanged between institutions, commercial enterprises or by individual citizens engaged in communicating internationally and within the Union.
(2000/C 280 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission
(29 November 1999)
Subject: Marking of PDO and PGI products
Several bodies licensed by the Italian Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Resources to certify PDO products and to append the PDO identifying stamp on those products use the services of the respective Consorzi di tutela (organisations for the protection of individual products) in the capacity of outside bodies. Apparently, the equipment for marking the products (branding or other methods) to show that they have been certified to be PDO is not therefore in the possession of the body authorised to certify such C 280 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
products but, on the contrary, held by organisations which have no licence to certify them. The procedure which has been adopted is not in accordance with the general and specific provisions of European Standard 45011, with which the certifying body must comply in order to be recognised at European and national level as qualified and reliable for the purpose of implementing the PDO certifying system. On the basis of the provisions of Regulations EC/2081/92 (1) and 2082/92 (2) the Consorzi di tutela do not therefore fulfil the requirements laid down in European Standard 45011, as they are not detached bodies and unable to guarantee impartiality with regard to inspections. In addition, private certifying bodies are, by using the services of the Consorzi, losing their independence, impartiality and detached status, characteristics which are essential in the case of bodies whose function is to monitor compliance with the law.
1. Is the Commission aware of the facts described above?
2. Can the agreements governing the relationship between private bodies and the Consorzi di tutela be disclosed and/or given to anyone asking for copies of them, in accordance with the basic principles of transparency?
3. Is it permissible for the Consorzi di tutela, being bodies which do not have the necessary qualifications, to be engaged in activities and services which are strictly the responsibility of the private certifying bodies?
4. Does the Commission regard as lawful the provisions which, on the basis of an agreement between the certifying body and the Consorzio di tutela, require even persons who are not members of any Consorzio di tutela to apply to those Consorzi di tutela for the purpose of obtaining the PDO marking for a product?
5. In view of the above-mentioned inconsistencies, does the Commission consider it advisable to take measures against the Italian Government for directly causing enormous financial damage to a section of producers who, though complying exactly with the regulations governing production, are obliged to pay a competing organisation for the purpose of obtaining the marking of their products and are in some cases actually deprived of the mark of conformity?
(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1. (2) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 9.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(20 January 2000)
1. The Commission has received no information from the Italian authorities regarding the points raised by the Honourable Member.
2. The Commission is also unaware of any agreements between private bodies and the ‘Consorzi di tutela’, an area governed exclusively by national law.
3. As regards the possibility of employing ‘Consorzi di tutela’ for activities and services that fall strictly within the competence of private certification bodies, the Commission draws the Honourable Member’s attention to its answer to Written Question E-1845/99 (1), which states:
As from 1 January 1998, in order to be approved by the Member States for the purpose of this Regulation, private bodies must fulfil the requirements laid down in standard EN 45011 of 26 June 1989 (the standard was amended on 18 February 1998).
The Commission feels it would be difficult for the strict requirements in this standard to be met by a ‘consorzio di tutela’, which is usually made up of the same producers who would be subject to the inspection required under the above Article 10
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs also stipulates that if an inspection structure uses the services of another body for some inspections that body must offer the same guarantees referred 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/15
to in Article 10(3). In that event the designated inspection authorities and/or approved private bodies are to continue to be responsible vis-à-vis the Member State for all inspections.
4. The only conditions to be met for the lawful use of a name registered as a protected designation of origin (PDO) or protected geographical indication (PGI) are those set out in the specifications. If the specifications stipulate that the marking of a particular product is to be carried out by a given body, those provisions are clearly lawful, whether or not the applicant is a member of the body responsible for marking.
5. The Commission is not aware of any anomalies in the inspection arrangements. It wishes to remind the Honourable Member, as it stated in its reply to his Written Question E-2066/99 (2), that Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 gives the national authorities a certain flexibility when designating inspection authorities for each protected name. Member States must withdraw approval from inspection bodies where the conditions referred to in Article 10(2) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 are no longer fulfilled.
In passing, the Commission wishes to point out to the Honourable Member that in the past it has considered at length the concerns and objections expressed, following a complaint from operators involved in the making of ‘Grana padano’ cheese. That complaint was shelved by a formal decision of 13 October 1999.
(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 27. (2) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 46.
(2000/C 280 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2176/99
by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(29 November 1999)
Subject: Construction of an underground railway in Brescia, Italy
The Commune of Brescia intends to build an underground railway. By Municipal Decision No 137 of 26 July 1999 it approved a preliminary plan for the construction of the underground railway although it is not yet clear what funds are available for the work. In fact, although the cost of the underground, which can be estimated on the basis of similar European projects/constructions, is about 1215 billion lire, only the first instalment of 165 billion lire is available (1). The choice of an underground railway is incompatible with the Master Development and Town Planning Scheme and the Urban Traffic Scheme recently adopted by the Commune which provide for a light tramcar network which would be much more suitable and justifiable in the case of a medium-sized town (200 000 inhabitants) such as Brescia. The adoption of an above-ground public transport system running on right of way has been, inter alia, confirmed by further studies commissioned by the Commune from an English company following the approval of the Master Development and Town Planning scheme. These further studies led to plans for two bus services/routes running on right of way (Linee di Alta Mobilità high-mobility routes) and the contract/specifications for implementing these plans has recently been allocated/drawn up. That network, which should come into operation in two years’ time, will serve the same customers as would the underground railway. The Brescia Greens lodged an appeal on 15.10.1999 against the municipal decision of the Commune approving the plan for an underground railway and a similar appeal was sent to the Interministerial Economic Planning Committee on 27.9.1999.
Annex II to the directives on environmental impact assessment, 85/337/EEC (2) and 97/11/EC (3), lists underground railways among the projects where a State must examine whether the assessment procedure should be applied. The Court of Justice recently ruled that in the case of the works listed in Annex II of those directives, a Member State is not entitled to exempt or withdraw a project from the environmental impact assessment procedure where its environmental impact is substantial, in particular because of its nature, size or location (4). Given its size and location, this plan for an underground railway must have a substantial impact. The purpose of the assessment must be, inter alia, also to take into consideration alternative solutions and to indicate the main reasons for making that choice rather than any other (5). C 280 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Does the Commission believe, especially in the light of the above-mentioned judgment of the Court of Justice, that a plan for an underground railway such as that proposed by the Commune of Brescia should be subject to an environmental impact assessment to show why other planning solutions were not preferred?
(1) See the decision of the Interministerial Economic Planning Committee of 20.11.1995. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. (4) Judgment of 16.9.1999 in Case C-435/97. (5) See Article 5 of Directive 97/11/EC.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(20 January 2000)
In the opinion of the Commission, based on the information given by the Honourable Member, the work to which the question makes reference, an underground railway project in Brescia, is within the scope of Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, and, in particular, it appears to be a project of the classes listed in Annex II of the two Directives (class 10 g of Directive 85/337/EEC and class 10 h of Directive 97/11/EC). Under Directive 85/337/EEC such projects should be made subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) where Member States consider that their characteristics so require (Article 4, paragraph 2): however, Member States are considered obliged to make at least a pre-assessment in order to establish whether these projects need to be made subject to an EIA procedure. Under 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 shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10, and may decide to apply both procedures (Article 4, paragraph 2).
Therefore, depending on the Directive applicable to the project for an underground railway in Brescia, Italy is obliged to comply with the respective above mentioned obligations.
In the light of the above, a letter requesting information has been sent to the Italian authorities. The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to ensure the observance of Community law.
(2000/C 280 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2189/99
by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 November 1999)
Subject: Infringement of Community insurance legislation and distortion of competition in Greece
As I did not receive a satisfactory answer to my previous question (P-1686/99) (1) concerning infringe- ments in Greece in the implementation of Community insurance legislation, which have resulted in distortion of competition and a possible risk of collapse of the insurance market under enormous deficits, will the Commission say:
1. whether it is aware that the Greek supervisory authorities are in breach of their obligation under Community rules to verify compliance with the requirement that the necessary reserves are covered by matching and equivalent assets up to the end of each business year, and that the same supervisory authorities are illegally allowing the required reserves for the previous year to be covered by assets acquired the following year, using for that purpose insurance premiums collected in that year and thereby creating a further reserve deficit at the end of the next accounting period,
2. what measures it will take to enforce Community directives concerning financial supervision and ensure that the Greek supervisory authorities comply with their obligations under Community legislation, 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/17
3. with particular regard to the listing on the Greek stock exchange of insurance companies with excessive reserve deficits, how it intends to enforce respect for and compliance with Community provisions concerning verification of the solvency and composition of the technical reserves of the companies concerned by the competent Greek supervisory authority, and
4. what progress has been made in transposing and implementing Community rules on roadside assistance in Greece? Is it permissible to link the provision of insurance policies with roadside assistance contracts offered at knock-down prices, thereby undermining competition?
(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 161.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(24 January 2000)
As the Commission indicated in its reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-1686/99 (1), analysis of Greek legislation implementing the third insurance directives Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive); (2) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directive 79/267/ EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive); (3) and Council Directive 91/674/EEC of 19 December 1991 on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (4) has not shown improper implementation, in particular as regards provisions concerning the financial soundness and supervision of the insurance undertaking (solvency margin and rules on technical provisions). Community insurance legislation requires that insurance undertakings have to establish adequate technical provisions in respect of their entire business. The amount of such technical provisions must at all times be sufficient for the insurance undertaking to meet any liabilities arising out of its insurance contracts. Moreover, the technical provisions must also be represented at all times by matching, sufficient and equivalent assets. The comparison between the amount of the technical provisions to be established and the assets representing them must be carried out on the same date, for example, the closing date of the insurer’s accounts or any other further date on which a control is carried out. In other words, it is not correct to use different dates for analysing the calculation of technical provisions, on the one hand, and the insurer’s investments representing these technical provisions, on the other.
As for the practical methods of supervision applied by national supervisory authorities to monitor the financial situation of insurance undertakings, insurance supervisors of Member States may indeed follow different methods in verifying compliance by insurance undertakings with national provisions regarding the correct calculation of technical provisions. However, the objective of their task is to ensure that the insurance undertaking has, at the time when the supervisor carries out this control, sufficient technical provisions and that they are represented simultaneously by adequate, equivalent and matching assets. In some cases insurance supervisors verify compliance of all insurance undertakings at the end of the financial (or accounting) year. They normally take as a tool of reference to carry out their supervisory task the returns and accounting documents required by national legislation. On the basis of the outcome of that control, supervisors may then pursue their tasks in order to evaluate the financial situation of the insurer at a later date, namely, the date when the control is carried out. They will so determine the actual financial situation of the insurer. Should supervisors be of the opinion that the assets representing technical provisions are insufficient to meet the undertaking’s liabilities, they can require the undertaking to take necessary measures to redress its financial situation, for example, by prohibiting the free disposal of the undertaking’s assets or requiring a restoration plan.
The Commission has examined the compatibility with Community law of the practical methods applied by Greek supervisory authorities to monitor the financial soundness of Greek insurance undertakings, in particular the requirement of covering their technical provisions of the previous year by assets acquired the year following the financial year. As it indicated in the reply to Written Question P 1686/99, the C 280 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Commission has discussed this issue with the Greek authorities, and did not find elements showing the existence of an established and continual administrative practice by Greek insurance supervisory authorities which would be contrary to national insurance legislation or to Community legislation on insurance.
With regard to the official listing of insurance companies to which the Honourable Member refers, Council Directive 79/279/EC of 5 March 1979 coordinating the conditions for the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing did not specifically provide for a situation of this kind. However, point I.1 of Schedule A of the Annex to the Directive, which lays down conditions for the admission of shares to official listing on a stock exchange (5), imposes a general obligation, in so far as ‘the legal position of the company must be in conformity with the laws and regulations to which it is subject, as regards both its formation and its operation under its statutes’.
Council Directive 84/641/EEC of 10 December 1984 amending, particularly as regards tourist assistance, the First Directive (73/239/EEC) on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (6), was transposed into Greek law by Presidential Decree DP 103/1990 of 22 March 1990, amended by DP 225/ 1196. However, the Commission is examining whether provisions other than those under Greek insurance law could prevent or hinder the provision of roadside assistance insurance in Greece by insurance undertakings duly authorised in other Member States in accordance with the insurance directives. The Commission has already made representations to the Greek authorities and, if necessary, will initiate the procedure under Article 226 (formerly 169) of the EC Treaty.
(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 161. (2) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. (3) OJ L 360, 9.12.1992. (4) OJ L 374, 31.12.1991. (5) OJ L 66, 16.3.1979. (6) OJ L 339, 27.12.1984.
(2000/C 280 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2209/99
by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission
(29 November 1999)
Subject: Structural Funds in per capita terms
In its response to Question E-1558/99 (1) the Commission stated that Luxembourg ‘received 0,04 %, which is the smallest share of the 15 Member States’.
If the Commission had taken the trouble to read the question, it would have seen that it was about relative prosperity per capita. Could the Commission now answer the question as to whether Luxembourg, the richest Member State in per capita terms, receives the largest per capita allocation from the Structural Funds? If so, how does the Commission justify the situation?
(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 34.
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(6 January 2000)
For the next programming period from 2000 to 2006, Luxembourg will receive, under the Structural Funds, annual per capita aid of € 31,23 (1999 prices). If the Member States are arranged in descending order according to the level of aid per head of population Luxembourg is in twelfth place, which means that it does not have the highest per capita allocation. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/19
(2000/C 280 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2235/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 December 1999)
Subject: Emoluments of Commissioners
Please detail each annual salary, allowance, benefit in kind (chauffeur, entertainment, etc.) and expense accounts available to Members of the Commission showing amounts both gross and net of tax; please estimate the net amounts if the Belgian tax regime were applied in each case. Please specify the rules for the use of a Commission car and chauffeur and any other benefits in kind.
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(5 January 2000)
Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2778/98 of 17 December 1998 amending Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom determines the emoluments of the President and Members of the Commission, of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice, and of the President, Members and Registrar of the Court of First Instance (1).
Under the terms of that legislation, the remuneration of the Commissioners, the President and Vice- Presidents may comprise, in addition to a basic salary, family allowances and other allowances. Family allowances are granted after deduction of any sums of the same nature that the Commissioner would receive from other sources.
The basic salary to which Commissioners, the President and Vice-President are entitled monthly (twelve times a year) is € 15 605 (calculated as 112,5 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6) for the Commissioners, € 17 339 (calculated as 125 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6 official) for the Vice- Presidents and € 19 142 (calculated as 138 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6 official) for the President.
The family allowances to which Commissioners, the President and the Vice-Presidents are entitled monthly consist of a household allowance of 5 % of basic salary (if there is a dependent spouse), a childrens’ allowance of € 213,62 per dependent child, and education allowances which vary according to the child’s age and stage of academic development (36 %, 50 % or 100 % of € 190,90 respectively for primary, secondary and university education).
A residence allowance is paid, equal to 15 % of the basic salary.
There is a representation allowance, currently € 607,71 for Commissioners, € 911 for Vice-Presidents, and € 1 418 for the President. Expenditure incurred for reasons of representation is reimbursed after presentation of the invoice. Reimbursement is limited annually to € 11 347 for most Members of the Commission. For the Vice-Presidents and Members with external relations responsibility, the ceiling is € 17 023 and for the President it is € 22 694.
When first taking up duty, a Member of the Commission (unless he or she is Belgian) is entitled to an allowance to cover his or her installation expenses, equivalent to two months basic gross salary (i.e. currently € 31 209 for a Commissioner), reimbursement for travel expenses for himself or herself and dependent family, and reimbursement of the cost of moving personal effects (insurance included).
The remuneration is subject to the Community tax (there are 14 tax marginal rates ranging from 8 % to 45 % applied to consecutive salary bands (2)), the temporary contribution (5,83 % rate on the taxable income over € 1 889,52) and sickness and accident insurance (1,8 % of basic salary).
As for application of Belgian tax, the tax regime applicable to income derived from Community employ- ment is a Community regime, which replaces national tax (and only in relation to such income) and is laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for the benefit of the European Communities (3). It applies to members of the Commission (and of certain other institutions and organs) as well as to Community officials. The question concerning the application of the Belgian tax regimes is therefore hypothetical and it is, consequently, not the Commission’s practice to reply to such questions. C 280 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Finally, concerning the use of a Commission car, according to the ‘practical arrangements for implement- ing the Commission decision of 29 July 1996 on the operation of the Commission’s car fleet’ ‘the Members of the Commission are provided with an official car and driver (two in the President’s case). An official car is available at all times but the drivers must not be asked to provide services for private purposes (where this creates overtime or involves the drivers in mission expenses). Members of the Commission may drive their official car themselves, particularly on non-working days’.
(1) OJ L 347, 23.12.1998. (2) In 1999, the minimum marginal rate of 8 % is applicable to the part of the monthly taxable income ranging between € 82,94 and € 1 463,98. The maximum marginal rate of 45 % is applicable to the part of the monthly taxable income over € 5 238,80. (3) OJ L 56, 4.3.1968.
(2000/C 280 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2257/99 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission
(13 December 1999)
Subject: Transport of donkeys
Would the Commission indicate the steps that they are taking to guarantee the humane transport of donkeys and other equine creatures both within the EU and between the Member Sates and third countries?
Evidence passed on to me by my constituents suggests that the conditions of transport continue to be unacceptable, with animals dying and suffering in cramped and inappropriate transport vehicles.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(10 January 2000)
The Commission shares the view that unnecessary suffering of animals should be avoided. For this reason European legislation is under continuous revision taking into account the latest available scientific evidence on animal welfare.
Council Directive 91/628/EEC, amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 on the protection of animals during transport (1), laid down the requirements concerning transport duration, resting periods and feeding and watering of animals during transport.
The Member States are responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the rules on the protection of animal welfare in accordance with their national legislation implementing the directives. Appropriate controls and inspections to ensure correct respect of the rules should also be carried out by the authorities of the Member States.
The Commission’s food and veterinary office (FVO) undertakes specific control and inspection missions to check that the Member States apply the Community legislation in an effective and uniform manner.
As for the future activities of the Commission in this field, a working group of the standing veterinary committee has recently been established to consider particular problems of the enforcement of the Directive in respect of long-distance transport operations. The Commission may consider amending current Community legislation on the basis of the conclusions of this working group.
The Commission is aware, following reports of the veterinary inspectorate of the food and veterinary office and from the complaints of various organisations, that enforcement of the Directive is inadequate in several Member States. Infringement proceedings are in the course of preparation.
(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/21
(2000/C 280 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2258/99
by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 December 1999)
Subject: Tax discussions
1. What changes to EU tax systems does the Commission believe should be considered at the next Intergovernmental Conference?
2. In particular, does the Commission support the introduction of qualified majority voting for any tax matters and, if so, which ones?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(11 February 2000)
As it made clear in its Opinion of 26 January 2000 (1), the Commission believes that because they reflect the fundamental views of national legislators on matters of economic policy, social cohesion and solidarity, tax and social security heavily influence voters’ domestic political choices justifying the retention of unanimity voting in these fields. Nevertheless, it considers that certain aspects of these two areas are inseparable from the working of the internal market and should be subject to qualified majority voting, particularly when obstacles lead to discrimination, double taxation or tax evasion. It should be stressed that it is not the intention to move towards general harmonisation of national systems, tax bases and tax rates.
In addition, qualified majority voting should be applied when legislation has already been harmonised, in order to simplify and modernise existing rules and ensure they are applied more uniformly. This applies in particular to the common VAT system and the movement of and controls on goods subject to excise duty.
Finally, the Commission is firmly committed to fighting fraud, which has become an increasing problem with the removal of tax frontiers for goods and the liberalisation of capital movements. Qualified majority voting should therefore also apply to measures aimed at preventing tax evasion and tax fraud.
The Commission will present detailed proposals on this issue at the Intergovernmental Conference.
(1) Adapting the institutions to make a success of enlargement: Opinion of the Commission under Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union on the calling of a conference of representatives of the Governments of the Member States to amend the Treaties COM(00) 34.
(2000/C 280 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2260/99
by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission
(13 December 1999)
Subject: Environmental conservation and the historical heritage of the Dos Llometes site in Valencia (Spain)
The Dos Llometes site in Massarrojos (Valencia) is undergoing a process of urbanisation that has caused widespread dissatisfaction among neighbours and organisations who believe that the above-mentioned project constitutes an attack on the conservation of the area’s environment and historical heritage.
The complainants (principally the Massarrojos Ecological Society) have presented their arguments against the property development company, Onofre Miguelo, to the fourteenth court of first instance in Valencia. A report carried out by the Valencian Ornithological Society which states that this site is the habitat of C 280 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
65 species of birds, 47 of which are protected by law, and a study carried out by the University of Valencia classifying the area as a ‘palaeontological site that may contain fossils from ten million years ago,’ were both presented to the examining magistrate.
Would the Commission be prepared to study the substance of the Valencian Ornithological Society’s report in order to determine whether the species listed in the report are covered by Directive 79/409/EEC (1)on the conservation of wild birds and, if so, to intervene against this ostensible violation of Community legislation?
Could the Commission also examine whether the Dos Llometes project involves a breach of Community legislation in the light of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna?
Does the Commission intend to seek relevant information from the competent authorities clarifying whether or not the mandatory environmental impact study was carried out in connection with the Dos Llometes project pursuant to Directive 85/337/EEC (3)?
Does the Commission not consider that given the damage to heritage that would be entailed by the urbanisation of Dos Llometes such an action flies in the face of the provisions laid down by its Recommendation 75/65/EEC (4) to Member States concerning the protection of architectural and natural heritage?
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (4) OJ L 21, 28.1.1975, p. 22.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(24 January 2000)
The Commission was not aware of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers. It is prepared to examine the report of the Valencian Ornithological Society in order to see whether the species listed in the complaint lodged with the examining magistrate in Valencia are protected by Council Directive 79/409/ EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. If this were the case, the Commission would ask the Spanish authorities to comment on the situation.
It would be necessary to see the Dos Llometes project to ascertain whether it runs counter to the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The area in question, the Dos Llometes site in Massarrojos (Valencia), has not been identified by the Spanish authorities as a Site of Community Importance for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission cannot presume that the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC have been infringed.
The Commission does not know whether the project in question has been made subject to an environ- mental impact assessment as provided for in Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. However, we would point out that Article 2 of the Directive 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. This provision applies to projects of the classes listed in Annex I to the Directive. It also applies to the projects of the classes listed in Annex II, where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. If it is found that Directive 85/337/EEC is applicable in this case, the project will come under Annex II and must therefore be made subject to an assessment, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive, if Spain considers that its characteristics so require. It should be noted that Directive 85/337/EEC was amended by Directive 97/11/EC (1), Article 3(2) of which stipulates that if a request for authorisation is submitted before 14 March 1999 the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments shall continue to apply. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/23
As regards the possibility that the Dos Llometes project runs counter to the provisions of Commission recommendation 75/65/EEC of 20 December 1974 to Member States concerning the protection of architectural and natural heritage, we would point out that in secondary Community legislation recom- mendations are non-binding legal acts for the Member States.
(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2000/C 280 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2290/99 by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Council
(13 December 1999)
Subject: Future of shipbuilding in Europe
On 5 November 1999, the European Trade Union called a four hour strike in the shipbuilding industry, on behalf of the sector’s viability, under the slogan ‘WORK FOR SHIPYARDS: A FUTURE FOR EUROPE’, and on 9 November, the Council of Industry Ministers assessed the situation of European shipbuilding. A two-hour strike had taken place on 27 October in Spain, a country with a long history of major commitment to shipbuilding, in all the yards belonging to the Spanish Shipbuilders’ Group, (Grupo Astilleros Españoles) to draw attention to their viability, and to protest against the privatisation of Astander by the Sociedad Español de Participaciones Industriales. At the same time, it was announced that the Commission was demanding that the Spanish Government return over 18 billion pesetas granted to the shipbuilding sector as tax credits, claiming that they were state aids.
The need to guarantee a future for the shipbuilding industry should be an absolute priority of the European Union, for economic, social and employment reasons. This needs to be achieved by mutual agreement with the trade union leadership, and guarantee, above all, employment in a competitive public sector.
Can the Council answer the following questions:
1. What measures can it put forward to guarantee the viability of shipbuilding, following the November Council meeting?
2. Is it aware of the privatisation of Astander, and does it seriously believe that dismantling the public sector is the right way to guarantee production and employment?
3. What is its opinion of the dumping practised by countries like Korea and Japan in this area?
(2000/C 280 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2311/99 by Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza (PSE) to the Council
(13 December 1999)
Subject: Aid to the shipbuilding industry
The European shipbuilding sector is in serious difficulty. One of the EU’s priorities should be to secure the future of a competitive shipbuilding industry which will contribute to social and economic development by maintaining a certain level of employment in a number of regions, many of which have a high level of unemployment.
In its report to the Council on the situation of shipbuilding in the world, the Commission acknowledges that South Korea’s public aid scheme for shipbuilding is destabilising the world market in that sector. With a view to planning measures which will remedy this state of affairs, has the Commission quantified the amount of such aid?
Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 (1) of 29 June 1998 lays down new rules on state aid to the shipbuilding sector up to December 2000. Is the Commission planning to extend the provision of such aid to European production beyond that date as a precautionary measure whilst it pursues its investigation into shipbuilding aid in South Korea? C 280 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
The Council of Industry Ministers is to meet on Tuesday, 9 November. Is the Council intending to include this item on the agenda for the meeting? If so, what measures is it intending to adopt?
(1) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1.
(2000/C 280 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2351/99 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Council
(13 December 1999)
Subject: Future of the European shipbuilding industry
On several occasions since the crisis of 1973, European shipyards have undergone restructuring leading to job losses and slumps in regions whose prosperity depended on shipbuilding and its role as a driving force for other economic sectors. The Commission has itself acknowledged the continued decline in prices. Between January 1997 and March 1999 prices of newly built vessels fell by between 15 and 31,5 per cent. The explanation for this lies primarily in the fact that certain Asian countries, South Korea notably, sell their products at a loss, with prices sometimes 30 per cent below European prices. Sizeable state subsidies enable them to pursue such commercial dumping practices.
Over the above the tentative measures announced by the Council of Industry Ministers on 9 November last, what short-term emergency measures, other than the well-known ones of appealing to the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank, is the Council prepared to order in support of European shipyards so as to guarantee their survival?
Does the Council regard safeguarding the future of the European shipbuilding sector as a priority, given the various social and economic arguments?
What action does the Council intend to take in order to protect existing shipbuilding jobs in the European Union and to guarantee the future of the sector, on which thousands of working people depend?
What instructions will the Council be giving to the Commission for the purpose of the first round of talks in Seattle at the end of this year, with a view to shielding the European shipbuilding industry from the unfair practices in which third countries indulge?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2290/99, E-2311/99 and E-2351/99
(13 March 2000)
1. In response to the questions and legitimate concerns expressed by the Honourable Members, the Council would first point out that:
in general the system of aid to shipbuilding is governed by the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 (1);
more specifically, the Commission, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 (2), approved aid to certain shipyards under restructuring in Germany and Spain.
2. At its meeting on 9 November 1999, the Council, in its ‘Industry’ meeting, was presented with two separate reports from the Commission, relating to:
the situation in world shipbuilding (report drawn up in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98),
the monitoring of the restructuring programmes for shipyards in Germany and Spain (fourth report drawn up in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/97). 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/25
3. Following the discussion on this item, the Council adopted the conclusions on the situation in world shipbuilding, of which the following key aspects should be noted, in summary:
the concern expressed by the Council over the critical situation the sector is facing as a result of overcapacity and very low price practices attributable to the Republic of Korea, and its request to the Commission to resume talks with that country with a view to halting such unfair competition,
the request to industry, the Member States and the Commission to gather as much evidence as possible of such anti-competitive behaviour, in order to take appropriate action within the WTO,
the urgent appeal to the IMF and the World Bank to monitor compliance with the conditions under which aid was given to the Republic of Korea following the economic crisis,
the request to the Commission and the Member States to make renewed efforts in the appropriate international fora, including the OECD, in order to ensure the application forthwith of rules guaranteeing fair competition.
Finally, at the close of those conclusions, the Council welcomed the determination of the Commission to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the abovementioned Regulation No 1540/98 (3) and to report on developments as soon as necessary.
The Council intends to include the item on the agenda for its ‘Industry’ meeting on 18 May 2000.
(1) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, pp. 1 to 10. (2) OJ L 148, 6.6.1997, pp. 1 to 3. (3) ‘Article 12: The Commission shall present to the Council a regular report on the market situation and appraise whether European yards are affected by anti-competitive practices. If it is established that industry is being caused injury by anti-competitive practices of any kind, the Commission shall, where appropriate, propose to the Council measures to address the problem.The first report shall be presented to the Council no later than 31 December 1999’.
(2000/C 280 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2296/99
by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(30 November 1999)
Subject: Humanitarian aid for Iraq
According to the Financial Times, the USA and the United Kingdom are applying pressure on the UN Secretary-General to replace the present humanitarian aid coordinator, Mr von Sponeck, because he dared publicise the devastating results of the sanctions which have been applied against the population of Iraq for the last nine years.
Given that the previous UN envoy to Baghdad was removed for exactly the same reasons and that according to current estimates 5 000 children are dying every day due to a shortage of basic medicines, will the Council say whether it intends to take initiatives with a view to ensuring that the provision of humanitarian aid to Iraq is no longer conditional upon its meeting the demand for complete disarmament? Does it agree that the position taken by the United States and the United Kingdom vis-à-vis Iraq shows the contempt with which the governments of these countries view the UN, which has become an organisation without substance which is unable to get its instructions obeyed?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
The Council notes that the UN Secretary-General recently extended for another six months the mandate of the UN humanitarian aid coordinator. C 280 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
The EU fully implements all existing UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to Iraq, including those relating to the oil-for-food programme. It has urged Iraq to co-operate fully with the UN. The Council notes that Security Council Resolution 1284, adopted on 17 December 1999, aims to expand and improve the oil-for-food programme.
The Council does not share the views expressed in the last sentence of the Honourable Member’s question.
(2000/C 280 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2307/99 by Lone Dybkjær (ELDR) to the Commission
(13 December 1999)
Subject: UN Convention to Combat Desertification
The following questions are tabled with a view to securing clarification of the positions taken by the Commission in implementing the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD).
1. In which developing countries does the European Union take part in funding the implementation of national action plans to combat desertification? How much money is spent, what is the money used for, and who is the recipient? How does the established financial cooperation ensure the continuity of action programmes and allow for necessary long-term planning?
2. What has the European Union done to encourage the mobilisation of funding from the private sector and other non-governmental sources and to promote and facilitate access by the developing countries affected to appropriate technology, knowledge and know-how, pursuant to Article 6 of the CCD?
3. What has the European Union done to ensure that its trade policy and tariff structures do not lead to desertification, e.g. by promoting monocultures?
4. What has the European Union done to ensure that its agriculture policy does not lead to desertification, e.g. through export subsidies that make traditional agriculture in arid areas unprofitable?
5. What does the European Commission Union done to ensure the speedy and comprehensive implementation of the CCD in the next few years?
6. What has the European Union done to ensure appropriate involvement of European stakeholders in the implementation of CCD?
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(27 January 2000)
1. The Community is at the moment not funding the implementation of national action plans to combat desertification in any country since only a few countries have actually drawn up a plan. However, it has funded and has continued to fund a variety of programmes and projects against drought and land degradation in the developing countries, in particular in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states. It is not possible to quantify the amount being spent, because of the cross-cutting nature of the subject. However, a report (1), which is currently being revised, provides details of the anti-desertification measures funded by the Community in the developing countries and in the Community over the period 1990-1995. By providing a financial envelope to each ACP state for the funding of its national indicative programme over a five year period under the Lomé Convention, the Community provides predictability for action programmes, allowing for long-term planning for ACP countries.
2. The Community has a general policy of promoting the private sector in the developing countries and facilitating the access of these countries to appropriate technology, knowledge and know-how. Indeed, it 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/27
was for this reason that it set up the Centre for the development of industry (CDI) under the Lomé Convention. The CDI mobilises funding and technology from private and non-governmental sources for the development of industries in the ACP states. Through structural adjustment support, the Community assists its partners in creating the enabling environment for the growth of the private sector.
3. In pursuit of its overall policy of gradual integration of the developing countries into the global economy, the Community aims at ensuring that trade does not have negative impacts on the environment. This was why it advocated the inclusion of the question of ‘trade and environment’ in the millennium round of the World trade organisation (WTO).
4. The Community pursues a policy of sustainable development and environmental protection in the developing countries. Agricultural export subsidies (stabex) is one of the issues currently being re- negotiated, under the post-Lomé arrangements, with the ACP states. Without prejudicing the outcome, the Community’s aim is precisely to ensure that they do not have negative effects on agriculture in these countries.
5. The Commission delegations in the ACP countries have been asked to initiate dialogue, wherever possible, with national co-ordinating bodies and focal points of the Convention to combat desertification (CCD) with a view to determining the best way forward in implementation of the Convention. The outcome of this exercise will enable the Commission to act in a more speedy manner.
6. The Community advocates decentralised co-operation and the involvement of all concerned in Europe in the development process, including the implementation of the CCD. It has co-funded and will continue to co-fund projects in the developing countries with European non-governmental organisations.
(1) SEC(97) 1429.
(2000/C 280 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2313/99
by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 December 1999)
Subject: Safety of rail traffic in the EU countries
Lorry traffic has grown considerably in the EU countries over the past decades. In 1970 one third of goods traffic went by rail, last year it was only 14 %. The opening of rail traffic to competition is important so that still more goods traffic can move on to the railways. Promoting rail transport would reduce the congestion on main roads and the environmental damage caused by traffic.
It is thought that improving the competitiveness of the railways will alleviate Europe’s traffic problems. The liberalisation of competition must not however take place at the cost of train safety, but the maintenance of track, for example, should be separated from the running of trains.
What measures has the Commission taken to guarantee greater safety in rail transport in the EU countries?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(27 January 2000)
By its nature and as a result of its operational procedures rail is an exceedingly safe means of transport. Even when including all rail related deaths including suicides and level crossing accidents, rail fatality rates per traffic unit are around a quarter of those for road. Passenger fatalities per passenger-kilometre for rail C 280 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
are around one twentieth of the rate for passenger cars. Similarly employee fatalities for rail freight can be estimated at around one twentieth of the road freight rate. These statistics show that by any assessment rail is considerably safer than road transport and therefore measures that succeed in encouraging the transfer to rail of traffic that currently travels by road could lead to a reduction overall in injuries and fatalities.
It is therefore of considerable concern to the Commission that the market share of rail has dropped to around 40 % of its 1970 level. In 1997, rail’s share of all intra-Community surface transport (including short sea shipping) was 8,6 % and its share of land transport was, as quoted, 14,4 %.
Improving the competitiveness of rail and ensuring that the rail industry is able to deliver services that current and potential customers require would offer an important step to encourage traffic that can use rail to do so. The railway infrastructure package, on which the Council reached a political agreement on 10th December 1999, would when implemented provide an important step in creating the conditions to enable this. The text also foresees that safety standards should be laid down by bodies that are independent of a railway undertaking as a safeguard to ensure confidence in the safety procedures.
The Commission is conscious of the need to ensure at Community level that appropriate safety standards are assured. Considerable work has been undertaken by the Commission in two areas towards this end. Firstly the Commission’s recent proposal for a directive (1) on the interoperability of conventional rail foresees the establishment of technical standards and the certification of equipment by notified bodies and would oblige Member States to regularly control the operation and use of the certified railway equipment. Secondly the Commission has been carrying out a study into safety regulations and standards for European railways. The final report available shortly will enable an assessment of what further action is needed at Community level.
(1) COM(99) 617 final.
(2000/C 280 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2314/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 December 1999)
Subject: Motor-car insurance in foreign countries
In a number of EU Member States, including the Netherlands, motor car insurance policies restrict the option of remaining in a foreign country, typically for any period of more than three months, in some cases of as little as eight weeks. The reason is that a vehicle insured in those countries may remain in a foreign country for only a limited continuous period. This situation can amount to a restriction on the right of residence in another country the more so in that it generally is not possible to get insurance in the country of temporary residence because the vehicle is not registered in that country.
1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?
2. If so, does the Commission take the view that these arrangements restrict the free movement of employees and the free movement of persons?
3. Which countries are in this situation and which are not?
4. What action will the Commission take on this matter?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(13 January 2000)
The Commission is aware of the commercial practice mentioned by the Honourable Member but it does not have accurate information about the specific insurance undertakings involved in the different Member States. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/29
As provided in the Third Motor Insurance Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (1) Article 2: ‘all compulsory insurance policies against civil liability arising from the use of vehicles must cover, on the basis of a single premium, the entire territory of the Community’. Insurance undertakings are not therefore allowed to exclude any Community territory from their coverage. However, according to the principle of freedom of contracts established in national legislation, a number of insurance undertakings agree in their policies that the contract shall expire after the insured person has stayed for a certain period of time in another Member State. They consider that a change of residence of the insured may require a re-evaluation of the risk involved. It is clear that in this context the insurance undertaking should reimburse the policyholders the excess of premium paid as a consequence of the anticipated termination of the contract.
The termination of the insurance contract when the insured person changes his or her residence to another Member State seems justified since the car must be registered in the new Member State of residence and the risk is considered to be located in the country of registration according to the insurance directives. The insurance coverage should not present special problems in this case. The insurance may be covered by the same insurance undertaking or another one authorised to operate on free provision of services from their home Member State or by any undertaking established in the new Member State of residence.
The fiscal legislation, which establishes the obligation to register cars in the Member State of residence, provides for constraining deadlines for registration in order to ensure the payment of motor taxes. It is desirable that insurance contracts take account of such deadlines. However it is not reasonable to expect the insurance policies to become a permanent safeguard permitting policyholders indefinitely to delay the registration of their cars beyond the established deadlines.
A different situation is when the insured has not really changed his or her residence to another Member State but is only abroad on a temporary basis for professional or private reasons. In this case the anticipated termination of the insurance contract may be troublesome for the insured who may have difficulties to find an alternative insurance contract for a temporary stay abroad. The insurance policies should not leave European citizens uncovered in such situations.
The Commission, which is setting up a working group on the modernisation of the motor insurance directives with the participation of the Member States, will look at the situation mentioned by the Honourable Member and will consider any possible action.
(1) OJ L 129, 19.5.1990.
(2000/C 280 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2339/99
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 December 1999)
Subject: The Greek Shipping Register
Having been assessed by the relevant European Union committee, the Greek Shipping Register was recognised as the organisation responsible for ship inspection and survey for a three-year period in Greece alone, since it fulfilled the solely qualitative criteria of Directive 94/57/EC (1) on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations.
Can the Commission indicate the results of the assessment of the Greek Shipping Register? Does it consider the results of the quality assessment to be satisfactory? In what way does it fall short of the quantitative criteria? Is it aware of any complaints against the Greek Shipping Register? What are its general observations?
(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20. C 280 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (25 January 2000)
The assessment of the Hellenic Register of Shipping (HRS) was carried out from 17 to 20 March 1997 in order to verify whether the Greek classification society met the criteria laid down in the Annex to Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations. The assessment proved that HRS did not fulfil the so-called quantitative criteria (1 000 ocean-going vessels over 100 gross tonnage (GT) in its class and 100 exclusive surveyors). As far as the qualitative criteria are concerned, it was assessed that the Greek organisation met them with the exception of some non-conformities which the Commission requested HRS to remedy. HRS implemented all the recommendations put forward by the Commission immediately after the assessment. Therefore the Commission was satisfied that HRS met the qualitative criteria.
At the time of the inspection, HRS had only 941 ocean-going vessels over 100 GT in its class and 60 exclusive surveyors. Following a different calculation method suggested by HRS, the number of exclusive surveyors would be 86, still not meeting the figure of 100 required by the Directive.
In March 1997 a complaint alleging HRS did not meet some of the criteria of the Directive was lodged with the Commission. The non-conformities alleged in the complaint coincided to a large extent with the non-conformities noted during the Commission’s assessment. As mentioned above, all the non-conformi- ties were remedied by HRS immediately after the assessment and therefore the Commission decided to close the complaint.
On 22 April 1998 HRS was recognised pursuant to Article 4 (3) of the Directive for a period of three years during which HRS can only work on behalf of the Greek administration. At present HRS is and will continue to be monitored by the committee set up under the Directive with a view to taking the final decision on its full recognition.
All the classification societies recognised at Community level are continuously monitored by the committee to ensure that they maintain high quality standards.
(2000/C 280 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2350/99 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission (13 December 1999)
Subject: Grant funding
What is the total cost of auditing all EU grant funding (Structural Funds and direct funding projects), including: internal audit costs, and costs incurred by outside contractors employed to audit EU funds?
I understand that, where funds have been obtained fraudulently or have been known to be misused, the European Commission reclaims them.
What percentage of total grant funding does the European Commission identify as misapplied and require to be reimbursed?
Is there a timeframe within which fund recipients must reimburse misused and/or wrongly allocated money?
What is the average percentage never recovered and/or written off?
Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (23 February 2000)
The accounting for the Commission’s administrative expenditure is organised by the nature of the expenditure and not by fund, policy objective, or type of administrative cost. Thus, the total cost of auditing all Community grant funding is not known precisely. The audit of expenditure by the managing 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/31
directorates general is organised by those directorates general and may even be funded from part B of the budget. No consolidation procedure is currently undertaken, which could give an indication of the total cost of the auditing activity. The introduction of activity based Management (ABM) which has been agreed by the Commission in November 1999, should enable the Commission to provide this type of information in due course.
If funds are identified as incorrectly applied, the Commission undertakes the procedure of debt recovery as provided by articles 28 and 29 of the Financial Regulation (1). The competent authorising officers establish recovery orders, which are sent to the Financial controller for approval and registered by the accounting officer. The latter is in charge of issuing the debit note and exercises all due diligence to ensure that the amounts due to the Commission are recovered. He initiates the recovery procedure, if the amounts are not paid by the due date.
As the main purpose of the reporting system is the efficient recovery of individual debts, no general percentages of recovery on grant funding can be given at this stage. The further development of reporting within the Sincom2 accounting system should enable the Commission to establish more general statistics of this type in the future.
(1) OJ L 356, 31.12.1977.
(2000/C 280 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2359/99
by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Commission
(13 December 1999)
Subject: Synthetic drugs
The use of synthetic drugs is spreading at an alarming rate and is causing deaths in all the EU Member States,
according to press reports, detailed instructions for concocting such substances are available on the Internet and the users of synthetic drugs are thus able to make their own supplies at home,
many too many young people are unaware of the irreversible damage which such substances can do, as is clearly illustrated by the fact that a liver transplant has had to be carried out on a 17-year-old girl in Lombardy (Italy).
In view of the above, would the Commission prepare, as a matter of urgency, a brief television broadcast to be shown on all national television channels (both public and commercial) in the Member States in order to inform young people and their families of the risks involved in drug-taking, to warn them not to use such substances and to ask them to assist the appropriate authorities in identifying and halting the activities of anyone who supplies or otherwise promotes such substances?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(21 January 2000)
The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about the problems caused by synthetic drugs. In its communication on a European action plan to combat drugs (2000-2004) (1), the Commission has highlighted that the problem could be reduced using appropriate legislation; actions against production and trafficking, including improved co-operation between national authorities and the chemical industry, in particular concerning precursors; international co-operation; and action on demand reduction through information and other preventive approaches. C 280 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
The communication points out as well that mass media campaigns have been widely used as a means of raising awareness on drug issues. To be effective, the messages in these campaigns should be well targeted, informed and realistic. It is of the utmost importance that such information campaigns act as a supportive element for local level actions undertaken with an educational perspective, both for young people and for key people in their environment. In addition, it should be stressed that this pedagogical approach implies that information for young people should be understood as a communicative process and dialogue rather than as a campaign. The Commission is convinced that the active involvement of young people in information activities is crucial for their success.
The European drug prevention week is a good example of combination of a grass-root approach with a European campaign to highlight the theme of the week and to support the visibility of local events. The Commission, within the framework of the Community action programme on the prevention of drug dependence (1996-2000), has launched and co-financed three European drug prevention weeks in all Member States. The 1998 week was addressed new synthetic drugs and young people and included a 30-second TV spot in 18 languages, a radio commercial in 6 languages, a press advertisement in 12 languages, a booklet in 13 languages and a poster in 19 language versions. The week was launched by a two-day international conference on drug prevention and policy, organised by the city of Vienna with the support of the Commission.
In addition, the Community action programme on the prevention of drug dependence (1996-2000) finances projects in several Member States to disseminate appropriate information among young people on synthetic drugs. These projects have produced many different types of education and information materials, in the form of brochures, booklets, audiovisual products and Internet sites. Moreover, these projects are organized in European networks to exchange models of good practice and develop joint actions that have European added value.
On the other hand, the Commission considers it inappropriate to promote media campaigns that do not take into account the needs and developments at local, regional and national level as being contrary to the principle of subsidiarity and a not very efficient use of public monies. The Commission is committed to continue its efforts to prevent drug dependency and promote healthy lifestyles among young people.
(1) COM(99) 239 final.
(2000/C 280 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2365/99
by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 December 1999)
Subject: Impact of carbon dioxide emissions on the climate
Many people consider climate change to be the biggest environmental problem facing mankind. It is vital that action be taken in the energy and transport sectors if greenhouse gas emissions are to be brought under control. The latest report from the European Environmental Agency in Copenhagen shows there to be great concern about CO2 emissions, in particular from traffic. What steps does the Commission envisage taking, as part of its remit in the fields of energy and transport, to ensure a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions in the EU?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(14 February 2000)
Climate change is a key area for integration of environmental considerations into all sectoral policies. This was stated in the Commission’s report (1) on integration to the European Council of Helsinki, as well as in the reports of the Transport and Environment Council (2) to the European Council in Helsinki. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/33
The cross-sectoral nature of climate change requires a broad integrated approach. Thus, the Commissioner in charge of the Environment in October 1999 announced the launching of a European climate change programme (ECCP) which is currently being prepared. Energy and transport must play a central role within the ECCP. The Commission is currently preparing a communication to list measures on climate change, as requested by the Environment Council of 12 October 1999.
Regarding transport, the Commission has already in the past made proposals that would, if adopted, have a beneficial effect in respect of climate change, for example the proposed package on rail revitalisation that is currently being discussed in the Council. However, action must go beyond these measures if the Community’s Kyoto target is to be met.
The existing measures on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from cars (voluntary agreements with the car industry and measures on monitoring and labelling) should be complemented by fiscal measures in order to achieve the target of CO2 emissions of 120 grammes per kilometre (g/km) by 2005-2010. The Commission is currently thinking about extending the concept of environmentally enhanced vehicles (EEV) to also include CO2 emissions, and to go beyond heavy duty vehicles. Renewable fuels must be considered in more detail, including the definition of common standards and distribution systems across the Community and the prevention of adverse effects in other fields, such as in air quality. Measures in air transport, as laid out in the communication on air transport and the environment (3), should include environmental charges for flights and, possibly, voluntary agreements by the industry. The taxation of aircraft fuel, which is desirable in principle, must in practice await a legal situation on the international level that allows its introduction.
An existing proposal for developing sustainable energy is that for a directive on restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products. Beyond this, however, closer co-operation on strategic goals between energy and environment is essential.
The Community strategy will need to focus increasingly on the conservation and more efficient use of energy; the promotion and development of renewable energies and new technologies; delinking energy growth from growth in national output; and on reducing and eventually removing subsidies and other aids to fossil fuel use. In this context measures with substantive national targets and with clear deadlines for both energy efficiency and renewables should be pursued. Access to electricity grids for renewable sources of electricity as set out in the Commission’s latest proposal and the campaign take-off are important elements in meeting the objective of doubling the current share of renewables in energy consumption to 12 % by 2010. There is now a need for measures to promote the penetration of co-generation in order to meet the target of doubling current levels by 2010 to 18 %. Intensive work on the demand side of energy such as energy labelling, energy services, and minimum energy efficiency standards in the framework of an action plan on energy efficiency needs to be launched in 2000.
(1) Press Release No 13573/99. (2) Press Release No 13572/99. (3) COM(99) 640.
(2000/C 280 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2370/99
by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Twenty years of protection of birds in the European Union
The EU’s directive on the protection of birds and the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals are milestones in nature protection legislation. Twenty years on, it is time to draw a balance. C 280 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
1. Can the Commission say whether these legal instruments have achieved their purpose?
2. Are there any shortcomings in transposition of the directive and the Convention? If so, in what respect?
3. How well have the Member States and the signatories to the Bonn Convention satisfied the requirements, in particular the requirements under the EU directive concerning designating special protection areas, transposing the provisions on the protection of species and the obligation to report to the Commission?
4. What has been, and is, the role of non-governmental organisations and associations in transposing the directive and the Convention? In what way could they increase their influence?
5. How can transposition of the directive and the Convention be made more effective? What role could the non-governmental organisations and associations play with their expertise?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(2 February 2000)
1. The objectives of the Bonn Convention, to which the Community is a party, as regards the conservation of migratory bird species are achieved at Community level by Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). Despite significant achievements over the past 20 years, the objectives of the Birds Directive are still not fully realised.
2. Whereas there are still some problems with national legislation fixing hunting seasons in a few Member States, the main problems relate to implementation regarding site protection.
3. According to scientific references, only Denmark and Belgium are considered to have largely completed the key objective of classifying their most suitable territories as special protection areas (SPAs). Other Member States have still to complete this process. Some Member States, including Germany, have failed to provide the necessary information on their classified SPAs, thus preventing the Commission from carrying out its co-ordinating role as regards the network of SPAs. There are currently 47 infringements cases being pursued for non-implementation of the Directive.
4. The non-governmental organisations (NGOs) play a key role in assisting the implementation of the Directive. This includes the scientific work on bird species, their habitats and sites, as well as ongoing monitoring and management of important areas.
5. The main challenge is to ensure complete implementation and enforcement by the Member States. The Commission, as guardian of the EC Treaty will play its full role in partnership with the Member States and the NGOs. The LIFE-Nature fund should also continue to play an important role in supporting key conservation projects for endangered and migratory bird species.
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/35
(2000/C 280 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2381/99
by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Priority of international law over an EU directive, and compliance with provisions of treaties concerning the ‘Iron Rhine’
The increase in the budget for trans-European networks confirms their importance for the European Union. Both the construction of new transport infrastructure and the modernisation of existing infra- structure are eligible for co-financing. The question of the Iron Rhine is a matter which is particularly deserving of the Commission’s attention in this respect. By virtue of Article 12 of the Belgium-Netherlands Arbitration Treaty (19 April 1839) and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties of 5 November 1842 and 13 January 1873 deriving therefrom (the ‘Iron Rhine Treaty’), Belgium is entitled to a link via the Dutch district of Sittard to the German frontier. This international right of transit assumed physical shape between 1869 and 1879 with the construction of the first cross-border rail link in Europe. However, after the two world wars the Iron Rhine between Antwerp and the Ruhr in Germany fell into disuse. The Dutch authorities are currently using national legislation to put obstacles in the way of resuming this interna- tional rail link.
1. Does the Commission acknowledge that by virtue of Article 12 of the Belgium-Netherlands Arbitration Treaty (19 April 1839), and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties of 5 November 1842 ands 13 January 1873 deriving therefrom, Belgium is entitled to a link via the Dutch district of Sittard to the German frontier?
2. Is Dutch environmental legislation pursuant to the habitats directive subordinate to the above- mentioned international agreements, given that one of the contracting parties to the Belgium-Netherlands Arbitration Treaty (Russia) is not an EU Member State? (N.B.: The Treaty of Vienna explicitly stipulates that international law takes precedence over national law.)
3. In the light of the answers to questions 1 and 2, will the Commission call on the Dutch authorities to comply with their obligations under the treaties, particularly as completion of the Iron Rhine is covered by the general principle of loyalty to the Community? If not, why not?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(26 January 2000)
1. The Belgium-Netherlands arbitration treaty (19 April 1839) and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties of 5 November 1842 and 13 January 1873 deriving therefrom are bilateral agreements between two Member States. As long as these bilateral agreements are not violating Community law it is not for the Commission to judge their effects. According to the subsidiarity principle, it is for the Member States concerned to assess and determine the future use of the Iron Rhine railway line.
2. The Commission is not informed in detail about the contents of the Treaties mentioned above. As far as the Commission knows the Treaties concern a right of way through a certain area (the Sittard canton in the Netherlands) but do not specify the precise location of the railway track inside this area. This means that both Member States will have to agree by their respective procedures on the manner in which the right of way is made effective. Consequently, the Commission sees no obstacle in advance for the application of the relevant Community law concerning the re-opening of the Iron Rhine railway line by the Dutch authorities if this would mean that an alternative route through the Sittard canton must be adopted. As a result of this, the question about the order of importance of international treaties and national legislation is not relevant in this case, since the application of the Community law will not necessarily obstruct the application of the treaties.
3. It is not for the Commission to direct the Dutch government to implement any non-Community treaty obligation it may have entered into. But the government of the Netherlands has declared that, because the old line runs through a special area of conservation in the sense of Council Directive 79/409/ C 280 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1), Article 6 (3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/ EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (2) have to be applied. This means that all the specific requirements of those provisions have to be met. One of the requirements in Article 6 (4) is that a plan or project can only be carried out in the absence of alternative solutions. This requirement may lead to the adoption of an alternative route in stead of a re-opening of the Iron Rhine railway line.
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2000/C 280 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2382/99
by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Impact on Southern Africa of the trade, development and cooperation agreement with South Africa
The trade, development and cooperation agreement between the European Union and the Republic of South Africa has recently been approved. It provides for free access to the South African market for 86 % of EU products, while the 15 EU Member States will grant free access to 95 % of South African products. Given that South Africa is a member of two regional pacts, this will also have an impact on other countries in the region.
South Africa is in a customs union with Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland. These five countries are not allowed to levy tariffs at their common frontiers. Accordingly, EU products will be bought and sold via South Africa tariff-free, even though Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland are heavily dependent on customs tariffs for their revenue. In addition, South Africa is negotiating liberalisation of trade with the ten other members of the SADC. Until an agreement is reached, businesses in the SADC countries will find it harder than their EU competitors to gain access to the South African market.
On 22 September 1998 Commissioner Pinheiro said in answer to written question E-2287/98 (1)by Mr Jaak Vandemeulebroucke that ‘the Commission expects that the envisaged agreement will have a positive dynamic economic effect on both South Africa and the other countries in the region’.
1. How much revenue did Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland derive from the collection of customs duties in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999?
2. What is the estimated revenue from customs duty levied on EU products imported into Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland in 2000 and 2001?
3. What indicators suggest that the agreement will have ‘a positive dynamic economic effect’ on Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland?
4. What indicators point to the agreement having ‘a positive dynamic economic effect’ on the other SADC countries?
(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 51. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/37
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(25 January 2000)
A detailed study, funded by the Commission, has been undertaken by the Botswana institute for development policy analysis (BIDPA) to assess the likely impact of the Community/Southern Africa (SA) free trade agreement (FTA) on the economies of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland (BLNS) and to put forward recommendations which will enable BLNS states to maximise the expected benefits whilst also minimising any potential adverse effects.
The average annual revenues (as a % of GDP) derived from the common revenue pool by the BLNS countries are: Botswana: 17,1 %, Lesotho: 41,7 %, Namibia: 27,6 % and Swaziland: 44,8 %.
The estimated effects of the trade development and co-operation agreement (TDCA) (diminishing common revenue pool because of lower tariffs) on the total revenues of BLNS countries are: Botswana: −5,3 %, Lesotho: −12,9 %, Namibia: −8,6 % and Swaziland −13,9 %. In reality the loss of revenue should be far less because many sensitive products have been excluded from liberalisation on the SA side, and there is no reason to believe that there will be a lasting shortfall. The Community is ready to assist the BLNS countries in implementing fiscal reform, necessary to diversify their sources of income and needed independently from the TDCA.
There will be gains for consumers and entrepreneurs alike. The business community will have access to a cheaper, better quality and more diversified range of supplies for their inputs and capital goods. They will thus stand better prospects for investing, exporting and hiring additional staff. Job creation and investment drive in the Southern African Customers Union (SACU) are expected to be the main positive effects of the FTA. This will result in a distributional gain within the BLNS economies and allow their ministries of finance to collect revenue through a different system of taxes.
The relationship between SADC and the FTA is more difficult to deal with in practical terms, because SADC has yet to become a structured entity on the trade front, through the negotiation of its own FTA. The general Community policy, to encourage economic integration at a regional level, ensured that it did not gain a better access to the SA market than the SADC countries; for example SA reserved certain trade concessions in the textile sector to its SADC partners. Furthermore, any trade concessions obtained by the Community under the FTA with SA have to be extended, according to the SADC trade protocol, to all SADC members. This ensures that SADC countries will secure better access to the SA market.
(2000/C 280 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/99
by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Shutdown of the unsafe nuclear reactor in Bohunice (Slovakia)
The Commission originally said that Slovakia’s accession to the European Union depended on the extremely unsafe nuclear reactor in Bohunice being shut down by next year. However, in mid-October the Commission said it would be satisfied with a shutdown in the period 2006-2008. Considerable opposition has been prompted by this decision.
1. Why has the Commission gone back on its original position that the extremely unsafe reactor should be shut down next year?
2. Does the Commission feel that shutting down the extremely unsafe reactor is no longer a prior condition for accession? If so, why does it consider that the shutdown is no longer necessary? C 280 E/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
3. What is the justification for postponing the shutdown of this reactor?
4. What time limit does the Commission now propose for shutting down the reactor?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(17 January 2000)
The Commission has never stated that Bohunice V1 reactors should be closed down in 2000 as a condition for Slovak accession to the Community.
In Agenda 2000, the Commission called upon the candidate countries operating non-upgradable reactors to close them at the earliest practical dates. Although Bohunice V1 belongs to this category, it is to be noted that western experts have acknowledged the progress made since 1996 in improving Bohunice V1 safety levels.
The Commission considers that the commitment made by the Slovak authorities to close down Bohunice V1 in 2006 (unit 1) and 2008 (unit 2) is realistic and balanced, taking into consideration the economic, social and political implications for Slovakia of the early closure of these reactors, as well as the safety improvements recently made at this plant.
The Slovak commitment on the closure of Bohunice V1 will be carefully monitored in the framework of the accession process. The Commission will make every effort to ensure that the closure dates announced by the Slovak authorities are met.
(2000/C 280 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2386/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(13 December 1999)
Subject: German assistance in constructing a laboratory for chemical weapons
The German Ministry of Defence has recently admitted that it intends to help Turkey build a laboratory for chemical weapons. The project is allegedly ‘purely defensive in nature’. However, the ‘Kennzeichen D’ programme on the ZDF television channel recently quoted military sources as claiming that on 11 May 1999 the Turkish army was using chemical weapons against the Kurdish PKK movement. Apparently twenty Kurds were killed. Research carried out by the University of Munich also shows that the heads on the Turkish chemical shells were supplied by the German firms Buck and Depyfag.
1. Is the Council aware of German help in building a laboratory for chemical weapons in Turkey?
2. Is this German-Turkish cooperation in line with international and European obligations and under- takings on disarmament and arms control, with particular regard to chemical weapons?
3. Will the Council oppose German help in building a new laboratory for chemical weapons in Turkey now that it is aware of the facts? If so, in what way will it make its opposition known to the German government? If not, why not?
4. Is the Council aware that on 11 May 1999 the Turkish army used chemical weapons against the PKK movement? If not, why is the Council not aware of this violation of the UN convention on chemical weapons by a candidate Member State?
5. Has the Council made known to Turkey its displeasure at this violation? If so, what was the Turkish government’s response? If not, will the Council do so, now that it has been informed of this fact? If not, why not? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/39
6. Will the Council conduct an inquiry into the use of German warheads for an assault using chemical weapons in Turkey, given that the equipment was supplied by an EU Member State and that this involves an act by a candidate Member State in violation of the UN convention on chemical weapons? If not, why not?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
All EU Member States are States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their destruction (CWC).
Among the general obligations contained in Article I of that convention is the undertaking by each State Party ‘never under any circumstances to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone’ nor ‘to assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention’.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) ensures the implementation of the provisions of the Convention, including those for international verification of compliance with it. All States Parties to the CWC are members of the OPCW.
The sources referred to by the Honourable Member have not been brought to the attention of the Council.
(2000/C 280 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2394/99
by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council
(13 December 1999)
Subject: The Tenda pass tunnel
The Tenda pass tunnel is the only Alpine pass linking south Piedmont and France,
over the last ten years the tunnel has been blocked on several occasions by landslides or landslide risk, caused mainly by subsidence of the roof, which is now worn and under tension,
this has resulted in very long delays and hold-ups for traffic,
the structure dates back to 1876 and it would be difficult to convert back to a normal, usable state,
it is situated at a considerable height, posing an extremely high risk for road traffic and for evacuation in the event of accidents,
passing through the tunnel obliges motorists to use routes which are difficult, particularly for heavy vehicles, and which climb to a great height,
the numerous suggestions for faster links in the region between France and Italy have been delayed or put on hold, at times for several months, without any appreciable progress.
In the light of the above, will the Council state its opinion and intentions with regard to the future of the Tenda tunnel and/or a road connection there (new tunnel, at what height, rebuilding of the existing tunnel) and, in more general terms, with regard to road connections on the route between France and Italy in south Piedmont? C 280 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Reply
(13 March 2000)
The Council has been discussing the problems posed by transport in the Alps in the light of the recent accidents in the Tauern and Mont Blanc tunnels. It has recommended operational preventive measures which could be planned at European level and offer greater safety to citizens travelling in Europe and has invited the Commission to submit proposals enabling it to draw up recommendations for improving tunnel safety and further developing uniform high safety standards applicable throughout Europe.
Regarding the specific question put by the Honourable Member, it is, however, not for the Council to comment on a situation which is the responsibility of national authorities. The Council is still awaiting Commission proposals.
(2000/C 280 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2397/99
by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Road infrastructure in Carrara
In Carrara, in the region of Tuscany, Italy, marble-working is the largest economic sector, employing over 10 000 people.
Recently, the use of lorries with trailers for transporting the marble has been declared to have reached critical levels because of the significant reduction in quality of life it is causing within the city.
The problem could be solved by constructing a road to the east of the city, about five kilometres in length, for an investment of ITL 75 billion. This would halve transportation times for marble, reduce city traffic and create an inter-regional route which would connect to the Tyrrhenian Sea Brenner Pass European route.
The isolation of roads in the region could be overcome once and for all by building just 15 km of expressway connecting eastern Lunigiana to the Apuan coast.
Could the Commission therefore say whether there are any specific financial aid measures for carrying out infrastructure work of this kind?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(21 January 2000)
The Structural Funds may finance infrastructure projects such as that mentioned by the Honourable Member, provided they are located in an eligible area.
The Commission is still awaiting the revised proposal by the Italian authorities under the regulatory provisions governing Objective 2 during the next programming period (2000-2006 (1)).
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/41
(2000/C 280 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2402/99
by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(13 December 1999)
Subject: Use of sewage sludge as a fertiliser in the agricultural sector
In a number of EU Member States, including the Belgian Federation, sludge from waste water purification plants is used as a fertiliser in the agricultural sector. The sludge is usually highly polluted with heavy metals. Scientific research (Adeline Montcharmont: Les risques sanitaires liés à l’épandage des boues de stations d’épuration urbaines, Ecole nationale vétérinaire de Lyon, thèse numéro 31, 1999) also shows that such sludge can be infected with bacteria, viruses and parasites. Both these facts necessitate further research and an appropriate approach at all policy levels.
1. In which EU Member States is sludge from waste water purification plants used as a fertiliser in the agricultural sector?
2. Which Member States have restrictions in force on the use of such sludge as fertiliser?
3. What is the Council’s attitude towards the use of sludge from waste water purification plants as a fertiliser in the agricultural sector, in view of the pollution with heavy metals and infection with bacteria, viruses and parasites?
4. Does the Council feel that a ban should be imposed on using sewage sludge as a fertiliser, in view of the pollution with heavy metals and infection with bacteria, viruses and parasites? If not, why not?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
1. The use of sewage sludge as an agricultural fertiliser and means of soil improvement is one of the traditional ways in the majority of the Member States for the disposal and recycling of such substances. Such use has already received the Council’s attention with a view to preventing the damaging effects that such use can have on the environment and on human and animal health.
2. In particular, the Council adopted Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture (1), which instrument governs the use of sewage sludge on farms.
3. In respect of the first two questions put by the Honorable Member, the Council would draw his attention to Articles 12 and 17 of Council Directive 86/278/EEC, which state that it is for the Commission to publish information on the use of sewage sludge on the basis of reports submitted by the Member States.
4. By adopting Directive 86/278/EEC, the Council generally authorised the use of sewage sludge as an agricultural fertiliser, subject to strict regulation and the necessary controls. That Directive regulates sewage-sludge use in order to prevent harmful effects for soil, vegetation, animals and man, while encouraging its proper use. It also sets limit values for concentrations of heavy metals (cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc and mercury). The Directive accordingly lays down certain restrictions to prevent contamination of the environment, as well as spelling out the risks for human and animal health from pathogens.
5. The Council believes that the Commission is currently working on the revision of the Directive so as to adapt it to technological and scientific progress made since it was adopted. When it receives the proposal for revision, the Council will examine it at the earliest opportunity. C 280 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
6. As regards the more specific questions concerning the use of sewage sludge as an agricultural fertiliser in the various Member States, the Council regrets that it does not possess the relevant information.
(1) OJ L 181, 4.7.1986.
(2000/C 280 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2405/99 by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Suspension of payment of structural funding
In how many cases, and in what instances, has the Commission made the allocation of structural fund appropriations dependent on the Member States in question complying with requirements of Community environmental legislation? In which of these cases has the Commission suspended payment of structural funding?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(25 January 2000)
Compliance with the whole body of Community legislation constitutes one of the conditions for granting Structural Fund aid. This is, moreover, laid down in the standard clauses included in the various decisions granting Community aid. Non-observance of Community legislation, including that on the environment, can therefore lead to the suspension, or even cancellation of assistance.
The procedure for establishing an infringement of Community law is separate from the procedure for suspending and cancelling aid.
However, for reasons of consistency, payment of Community aid is, as a matter of principle, suspended after the infringement procedure is initiated (formal notice to the Member State). An aid cannot be suspended on the basis of a complaint or following a simple request to the Member State for information. The Commission can cancel the payment when it establishes, by reasoned opinion, that there has been an infringement of Community law.
It should, finally, be stressed that Community aid can be suspended following the formal notice to the Member State (in order to allow investigation of the infringement without putting the Commission in a contradictory situation), whereas cancellation of aid is never decided automatically.
Infringements of Community environmental law have led to the suspension of European Regional Development Fund assistance, inter alia, in the following cases: the joint project by Germany and the Netherlands in the Aachen/Heerlen industrial area; a dam at Abrilongo in Portugal; the protection of the Caretta caretta turtle in Greece; and a road project in Algeciras in Spain. With regard to aid from the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, no payment has been suspended for non-observance of environmental rules.
However, there may be certain specific conditions within plans or programmes which are not in themselves grounds for suspension but do affect eligibility. For example, in the single programming document of the Spanish region Aragon for Objective 5b, the eligibility of irrigation work in sector VIII is conditional upon an agreement between the Commission and those responsible for the measure at national and regional level guaranteeing compliance with Council Directives 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2).
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/43
(2000/C 280 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2407/99
by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Esperanto
Has the Commission undertaken any studies on the use of Esperanto across the Union? Does it feel that there is any place for Esperanto as a tool for creating cohesion between the present and future European Union nations, and is Esperanto included in any of the current EU language schemes?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(10 February 2000)
Respect for cultural and linguistic diversity is a crucial element of European integration. Promoting better knowledge and understanding of the cultures and languages of other Europeans is therefore of particular importance. Languages will continue in future to be the key to knowing others.
Esperanto does not feature in the Community’s programmes on education and vocational training. The aim of these programmes is to promote linguistic diversity with a view to granting equal status to each of the Union’s languages. It is therefore necessary to vary language teaching and language use in order to enable all Europeans to experience the cultural wealth that is embedded in the EU’s linguistic diversity.
(2000/C 280 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2414/99
by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Illegal burial of toxic waste
Residents and organisations in the general area of the Gulf of Yera on the island of Lesbos complain that the firm Mamidakis has been illegally operating its storage facilities in the Skala Loutron region for the past two years, since the State Council’s decision of 10 November 1997.
The issue of illegal burial of fuel tank waste by Mamidakis has also come to light recently. Under Joint Ministerial Decision 72751/3064/84 this waste is classified as toxic and dangerous. For many years, in fact, waste from tank-cleaning in the Mamidakis storage facilities in the Skala Loutron region was illegally buried in a ditch approximately five metres deep, despite the fact that according to the environmental impact study the waste from tanks was supposed to be stored in a specially covered area, in drums marked ‘Danger’, until it was transferred to other locations outside Lesbos that are provided for toxic and dangerous waste.
It should also be noted that the petroleum products firm operates its storage facilities entirely inside the residential area of Skala Loutron, and that the safety distances fixed by law are not adhered to, entailing a risk of explosion or escape of toxic substances in the event of an accident.
Since the Gulf of Yera forms a sensitive terrestrial and marine ecosystem of great ecological value, incompatible with the operation of fuel storage facilities, and since the illegal burial of waste has substantial effects on the water table and, more generally, on the area’s environment, does the Commission consider that the above-mentioned practices on the part of Mamidakis constitute a breach of the relevant Community legislation, sufficient to warrant starting proceedings in the Court of Justice? C 280 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
What financial penalties does the Commission intend to impose on the competent Greek authorities who have not yet complied with the Court’s decision on their failure to observe Article 7 of Directive 76/464 (1) on pollution caused to the aquatic environment by certain dangerous substances?
(1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(31 January 2000)
The Commission did not have any information on the operation of the Mamidakis company’s plant in the Gulf of Yera area on the island of Lesbos. Following the Honourable Member’s question, the Commission will ask the Greek authorities for details of how this plant operates, and how the dangerous waste is stored.
With regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 June 1998 which found that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous subtances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, by failing to establish programmes including quality objectives and setting deadlines for their implementation to reduce the pollution of Lake Vegorrítis, the river Soulos and the Gulf of Pagasaí by the dangerous substances on List II of the Directive, the Commission sent Greece a letter of formal notice on 18 December 1999 on the basis of Article 228 (ex Article 171) of the EC Treaty. The Greek authorities replied on 23 March 1999 and 16 September 1999, notifying a set of measures taken to comply with the aforesaid judgment. The relevant documents are now being examined.
In addition, the Commission, noting Greece’s general failure to establish programmes which include quality objectives and set deadlines for their implementation to reduce the pollution of water by substances on List II of Directive 76/464/EEC, brought the matter before the Court of Justice on 11 November 1997. The Court has not yet delivered its judgment.
(2000/C 280 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2420/99 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Providing a scaled-down military structure for the EU
During the recent third round of Franco-Spanish strategic talks, both countries stated their wish to see the EU equipped with a scaled-down military structure which would enable it to react quickly to crises such as that in Kosovo.
This structure could take the shape of an ambassadorial-level Policy and Security Committee, a high command and a headquarters whose remit would be to plan and carry out military operations.
How does the Commission, given its powers of initiative, regard the Franco-Spanish view of the basic nucleus on which Europe’s ’security and defence identity’ might be built up? Will it support the position of Spain and France?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(18 January 2000)
The Franco-Spanish talks focussed on issues concerning military and non-military aspects of crisis management, i.e. for Petersberg tasks. As the Honourable Member will know these issues discussed extensively in the Council in the period leading up to the Helsinki European Council. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/45
The objective agreed at Helsinki is for the Union to have an autonomous capacity to take decisions, to launch and then to conduct Union-led military operations where the Atlantic Alliance as a whole is not engaged. The headline goal adopted at Helsinki is for the Union to be able to deploy up to 50 000-60 000 troops capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks within 60 days.
Interim institutions for decision-making on crisis management, and for operational control of both military and non-military actions which may be launched in crisis situations are to be introduced.
A report identifying non-military (civilian) aspects of crisis management and crisis response tools both at Union and national level was also noted at Helsinki. The intention is to bring together capabilities at national and European level (for instance police, monitors, human rights experts), and to establish a mechanism for rapid co-ordination and deployment.
As a first step new decision-making and advisory bodies will be set up in Brussels on an interim basis. The structures to be set up are a political and security committee staffed by representatives at senior level. There will also be a military committee, staffed, in the interim phase, by military representatives of Member States. It will give military advice to the Council as needed. A civilian crisis management coordinating mechanism is also to be established within the Council.
All decisions in the area of European security and defence policy will be taken ‘within the single institutional framework’, thus ensuring inter-pillar coherence. The Commission looks forward to these new forms of cooperation and will contribute actively where it has responsibility and experience, namely in the area of non-military crisis management and conflict prevention.
(2000/C 280 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2443/99 by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Europe Agreements with Eastern European countries
Each of the ‘Europe Agreements’ which the EU has concluded with Eastern European countries includes an ‘equal treatment requirement’ relating to the establishment of companies and nationals of the contracting countries (subject to certain provisos for special occupations).
1. Does the Commission consider that this equal treatment requirement includes a prohibition of discrimination?
2. Does the Commission consider that an EU Member State is barred from submitting nationals of the contracting countries to ‘needs tests’ if their own self-employed nationals are not required to undergo such tests?
3. Does the Commission agree that, where a Member State does not require its own self-employed nationals to produce evidence of prior knowledge, etc., such evidence may not be required of the nationals of the contracting partner countries?
4. Does the Commission agree that, where a Member State does not require its self-employed nationals to produce evidence of capital, this may not be required of the nationals of the contracting partner countries?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(24 January 2000)
1. The Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member that the principle of equal treatment contains the prohibition of discrimination between nationals of the associated countries and nationals of the Member States. C 280 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
2. The Member States may apply their laws and regulations regarding entry and stay, work, labour conditions, and establishment of natural persons, provided that, in doing so, they do not apply them in a such manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any party under the terms of a specific provision of the Europe agreements (see for instance Article 58 of the agreement with Poland).
3. It is the opinion of the Commission that the Europe agreements permit the Member States to verify that nationals of the associated countries have the required qualifications to establish themselves on their territory.
4. Member States may require that nationals of the associated countries have the financial means to establish themselves on their territory and to ascertain that self-employment and business undertakings by nationals shall not extend to seeking or taking employment in the labour market or confer a right of access to the labour market of another party to the Europe agreement (see for instance Article 44 paragraph 4 of the agreement with Poland).
In addition to the answers given under 3 and 4, it is noted that the scope of the relevant provisions of Europe agreements is subject to the scrutiny of the Court of justice. There are currently four cases, in which national courts have requested a preliminary ruling by the Court of justice on the application of the relevant provisions in the Europe agreements (Gloszczuk/C-63/99, Kondova/C-235/99, Barkoci & Malik/ C-257/99 and Jany etc./C-268/99). The Commission has submitted observations in all cases. The rulings by the Court of justice cannot be expected before summer 2000.
(2000/C 280 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/99 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Council
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Community action programme for youth
On 28 August 1998 the Commission submitted a proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision establishing a Community action programme for youth (COM(98) 331) (1). After the European Parliament’s second reading on 28 October 1999 the decision was submitted to the Council for its second reading.
1. Why will the Council meeting and thus the discussion on the action programme for youth be held not, as planned, on 23 November 1999 but in early January?
2. How does the Council imagine the various youth programmes forming part of the action programme for youth can be implemented effectively in accordance with its objectives with only EUR 350 million (rather than the EUR 765 million proposed by the Commission and the EUR 980 million proposed by Parliament) for the period 2000-2004?
(1) OJ C 311, 10.10.1998, p. 6.
Reply
(13 March 2000)
At the Youth Council on 23 November, no decision was taken to initiate the conciliation procedure for the proposed ‘Youth’ programme. In view of the need to make the most effective use of the time available (six weeks with a possible extension of two weeks from the date of the first meeting of the Conciliation Committee as provided for in Article 251 of the Treaty), the Council subsequently proposed to the Parliament that conciliation should begin at a mutually convenient date in January. The first conciliation meeting was held on 27 January 2000.
As far as the Common Position figure of EUR 350 million for five years is concerned, this was agreed unanimously by the Youth Council on 27 May 1999. In the ‘Statement of the Council’s reasons’ 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/47
accompanying the Common Position (1) the Council indicated that this funding ‘both granted its wish to see the programme become a success and its concern for a fair division of the available resources at a time of significant financial restraint.’
(1) OJ C 210, 22.7.1999, p. 1.
(2000/C 280 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2458/99
by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: The European stationery industry
The European stationery industry, in particular the manufacture of pens, pencils, biros etc., is being damaged by the mass influx on the European market of articles that are faithful copies of Italian and European designs but whose price is 50-60 % lower than their actual value.
The key perpetrators of such unfair competition are firms from non-member states, such as China, India, Taiwan and Indonesia, which, using a myriad of importers scattered throughout Europe, now have the capacity to exhibit their products at national and international trade fairs.
This widespread lawlessness has been made possible by a combination of several factors: the lack of controls by the authorities, the excessive duration (many years, especially in Italy) of civil proceedings brought with a view to protecting trademarks and patents, the lack of solvency of the aforementioned importers (they are often dummy companies with a sparsely-furnished office, fax and telephone, which can be dismantled and transferred elsewhere under another name within a few hours).
Furthermore, these manufacturers systematically breach all the strict safety standards which their European competitors are obliged to comply with, thereby endangering people’s health, especially that of children, who are often the end users of these products.
If this unlawfulness and unfair competition continue, European industries, particularly those in Italy, will be forced to close down; this will have a serious impact on employment and on the market, which will be completely flooded with dangerous, low-quality products, to the total detriment of consumers.
First and foremost, can the Commission say how it intends to act in the most appropriate and effective manner to curb this phenomenon swiftly and to restore legality in this area?
Secondly, can it take action to limit the import of stationery products from countries with which, because they operate in an economic climate that is particularly favourable owing to local conditions (labour costs that are next to nothing compared to those in Europe, negligible or even non-existent safety standards in the workplace, absence of product quality and safety standards), European firms are unable to compete on equal terms?
Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission
(28 January 2000)
The Honourable Member has raised a number of important questions with respect to action taken within the Community to address the problems created by the production and marketing of counterfeited goods by companies in a number of third countries. It is clear that the marketing of counterfeit and pirated goods damages trademark owners, law- abiding manufacturers and traders, and misleads consumers. As the Honourable Member has rightly pointed out, counterfeited goods can also cause public health hazards. C 280 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
In order to prevent counterfeited goods from entering into and being sold on the Community market, the Community has adopted rules and regulations that aim to protect intellectual property rights (IPR) effectively within the Community. In particular, Council Regulation 3295/94 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 of 25 January 1999 laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods (1), allows Community customs’ authorities to suspend the release of goods suspected of being counterfeit, or pirated, while the rightholder launches infringement proceedings before the national authorities. The Commission is presently working closely with Member States in the framework of the Customs 2002 Programme to help customs and the economic operators to exchange information better and to improve the service offered by customs to rightholders through an increased emphasis on training for customs officials involved with intellectual property rights.
The Commission also adopted in October 1998 a green paper on combating counterfeiting and piracy in the single market (2), which is the start of a wide consultation process to strengthen the fight against piracy in the Community.
As the Honourable Member has correctly pointed out, a key element of an overall strategy to combat counterfeiting must be to eliminate the problem at the source, i.e. in the country where such goods are made. An important step towards an improved protection of IPR throughout the world will have been taken on 1 January 2000, when developing countries (except the least developed) will have had to implement fully the World trade organisation provisions on IPR protection (the well-known trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs)-agreement). In implementing the WTO rules on intellectual property these countries are obliged to provide for criminal procedures and penalties in all cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting on a commercial scale.
With regard to the position expressed by the Honourable Member with respect to the economic conditions prevailing in developing countries, the Commission would observe that low labour costs are one of the key factors of their comparative advantage and a prerequisite to enable them to integrate more fully into the global economy and pursue economic development. It is the view of the Commission that as their level of subsistence increases they themselves have an interest in improving the conditions of work including safety, health and other aspects.
(1) OJ L 27, 2.2.1999. (2) COM(98) 569 final.
(2000/C 280 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2463/99
by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(16 December 1999)
Subject: EU rules and Sweden’s restrictive drugs policy
In Sweden the rules heavily restrict the import of substances classified as narcotics, even when they are prescribed by doctors for medicinal purposes. For example, Medicines Regulation 1997/11 allows an individual to import amphetamines for no more than five days’ personal use.
A Swedish doctor has now reported Sweden’s actions and regulations to the Commission, maintaining that the rules applied in Sweden infringe EU rules on the free movement of goods and services between the Member States, and wishing the Commission to take action against Sweden and declare our rules to be illegal and in contravention of EC law.
If the Commission found that Swedish legislation did infringe EU law, would a Swedish citizen then be able to have drugs prescribed by a doctor in another Member State whose drugs policy is more liberal, and then import them into Sweden, with the Swedish Customs authorities powerless to act? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/49
Reply
(13 March 2000)
On 22 December 1994 the Schengen Executive Committee approved a form for a certificate to carry narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substances for the purpose of medical treatment (1).
The certificate, based on Article 75 of the Schengen Convention, allows residents of any of the countries applying the Schengen acquis to travel to other countries applying the Schengen acquis, lawfully carrying on their person a medically prescribed quantity of narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substances for 30 days’ treatment.
These are very special situations involving a limited number of people whose state of health is such that they have to take medicine on a regular basis. Such medicine is prescribed by a doctor in their country of residence, who uses for that purpose the special certificate provided for in Article 75 of the Convention. The authorities in each country applying the Schengen Convention can check up on the certificate by contacting the central office in the country in which it was issued.
Once the Schengen acquis, now incorporated into Community law, becomes applicable in Sweden, these arrangements will apply there.
(1) SCH/Com-ex (94) 28 rev. and SCH/Stup (94) 21.
(2000/C 280 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2466/99 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Council
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Travel to European Parliament part-sessions in Strasbourg
Parliament holds part-sessions in Strasbourg once a month. To that end, a huge number of officials and other staff are required to travel from Brussels or Luxembourg to Strasbourg. A large proportion of those travelling on ‘mission’ in this way go by car.
How many staff overall travel every month from Brussels or Luxembourg to Strasbourg?
How many of the staff in question go by car?
How high are the total costs (including the cost of overnight stays, meals, etc.) resulting from the ‘removal’ to Strasbourg?
Are there records concerning, or is it known, whether or how often Council staff are involved in road accidents during such journeys?
Is it known whether there have already been cases of death or serious injury resulting from road accidents during such journeys?
Are there records of costs arising from accidents?
Do the accident statistics for the days of travel to and from Strasbourg deviate from those for other days?
Reply
(16 March 2000)
The replies to the Honourable Member’s questions concerning the journeys made by Council officials to Strasbourg in connection with European Parliament part-sessions are set out below.
Each month when a part-session is held, an average of 21 officials travel to Strasbourg from Brussels. Of these, about 10 go by car. The average total amount incurred in mission expenses is EUR 13 285 per part- session month. C 280 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
The Council has, to date, received no reports of any road accidents involving its staff during such journeys.
The Council would remind the Honourable Member that members of the Council Working Party on General Affairs also travel regularly from Brussels to European Parliament part-sessions in Strasbourg.
(2000/C 280 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2467/99 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Travel to European Parliament part-sessions in Strasbourg
Parliament holds part-sessions in Strasbourg once a month. To that end, a huge number of officials and other staff are required to travel from Brussels or Luxembourg to Strasbourg. A large proportion of those travelling on ‘mission’ in this way go by car.
How many staff overall travel every month from Brussels or Luxembourg to Strasbourg?
How many of the staff in question go by car?
How high are the total costs (including the cost of overnight stays, meals, etc.) resulting from the ‘removal’ to Strasbourg?
Are there records concerning, or is it known, whether or how often Commission staff are involved in road accidents during such journeys?
Is it known whether there have already been cases of death or serious injury resulting from road accidents during such journeys?
Are there records of costs caused by accidents?
Do the accident statistics for the days of travel to and from Strasbourg deviate from those for other days?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(21 January 2000)
In 1998, which is the last full year for which complete figures are available, Commission officials from Brussels and Luxembourg undertook 2705 missions to Strasbourg in connection with duties related to the meetings of the European Parliament. These missions cost a total of € 1,3 million in the year, and 124 of them took place by car. The Commission is not aware of any accidents during missions to Strasbourg by car. The Commission does not, therefore, have any details relating to accidents, injuries or deaths.
The Commission does not have detailed accident statistics for the relevant stretches of the Belgian, Luxembourg and French road systems which would enable calculations of relative accident rates to be made.
(2000/C 280 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2472/99 by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Council
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Common Air Traffic Control area throughout the EU
Is the Council aware that, because of its failure to agree a common Air Traffic Control area throughout the EU with a common EU-wide capacity plan, average flight-time delays are set to rise to 50 minutes? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/51
Would not the Council agree that this situation is unacceptable and that it constitutes a failure by the Member States towards passengers and airlines which they should begin to remedy immediately?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
The Council shares the Honourable Member’s concern. In its Resolution of 19 July 1999 (1) the Council noted that the situation in air traffic delays undermined the efficiency of Community air transport, caused great inconvenience to air travellers and could cause an additional burden on the environment. Having welcomed the action taken by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) to improve the efficiency of air traffic management in Europe, it invited the Member States to intensify their action at national level and the Commission to submit a communication aimed at reducing air traffic delays and congestion in Europe.
Further to that Resolution, the Commission submitted to the Council, at its meeting on 9 and 10 December 1999, a general communication on the subject aimed at the creation of a ‘single European sky’. The Council took particular note of the Commission’s intention to set up a high-level group that would bring together the parties responsible for the management of air traffic in the Member States and cover the civil and military use of airspace, while taking due account of the interests of the end users of air transport.
The Council is awaiting the Commission’s report on the group’s findings so that it can discuss them at its meeting in June 2000.
(1) OJ C 222, 4.8.1999, p. 1.
(2000/C 280 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2476/99 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Complaint about harassment
On 20 November 1998 a national expert seconded to the Commission made a complaint to his superiors about harassment. The individual resubmitted his complaint on 4 December 1998.
Despite the Commission recommendations on the subject, no action was taken to protect the individual concerned.
On 25 February 1999 he was unfairly relieved of his duties and his request for the renewal of his contract, which was supported by the Commission, was rejected.
These facts appear to constitute a breach of the principles relating to the protection of victims laid down in the Commission recommendations.
The Commission only decided to launch an internal investigation procedure three months after the first complaint.
The procedure has still not been completed.
1. What is the official procedure for dealing with complaints about harassment within the Commission?
2. What measures may the Commission take to protect victims?
3. What sanctions may the Commission apply to those responsible for harassment?
4. What is the time limit for the completion of the internal procedures and what safeguards exist to ensure impartiality?
5. What measures are provided for to compensate the victims of harassment? C 280 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(9 February 2000)
A complaint of harassment lodged by a member of staff of the Commission can lead to an administrative inquiry decided on by the competent Appointing Authority (AA). The Commission provided specific information to its staff concerning procedures relating to the protection of the dignity of the person, in an administrative notice dated 29 February 1996. The purpose of the administrative inquiry is to establish the existence of the facts and may lead to disciplinary proceedings against a person found to be responsible.
Measures can be taken to protect the victim of the harassment by his or her hierarchy, such as a transfer to another post whilst the inquiry is being carried out.
Disciplinary proceedings are initiated by the appointing authority on request of the hierarchy of the person concerned or on its own initiative. They may lead to the imposition of a sanction as laid down in the Staff Regulations.
During the phase of administrative inquiries no time limits apply. In the event that disciplinary proceedings are opened according to the decision of the appointing authority, the Commission has depending on the individual case to obey the time limits provided for in Article 87 and Annex IX of the Staff Regulation.
In order to determine the appropriate sanction the AA has to establish all facts in respect of the person being subject to a disciplinary proceeding and is therefore entitled and obliged to eliminate all doubts.
The AA, can take a decision without an opinion from the disciplinary board in cases of disciplinary measures such as a written warning or a reprimand, but must consult the disciplinary board to take other measures. The AA takes a final decision after the disciplinary board has delivered its opinion.
Article 7(3) of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations provides that the appointing authority must take its decision within one month from the delivery of the reasoned opinion of the disciplinary board; it shall first hear the official concerned.
However, the case law of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance states that the time limits laid down in Article 7(3) are not mandatory but are only rules of good administration.
Disciplinary proceedings are subject to the principle of the presumption of innocence. The regularity and the impartiality of the entire procedure are under the control of the Court of First Instance.
As to compensation for victims of harassment, the institution may be liable to compensate them where damage is proved to have resulted from a service-related fault of the institution.
(2000/C 280 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2480/99
by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Housing safety standards
Recent instances in which residential buildings have collapsed (last year in Rome, this year in Foggia), apparently without any specific cause, in other words not as the result of gas leaks or earthquakes, have not only led to casualties but given rise to fears amongst the inhabitants and justified concern among public officials over the minimum safety standards for buildings. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/53
By analogy with the action taken to lay down minimum standards for electrical installations and to ensure that the lifts are in proper working order in residential buildings, so as to guarantee the safety of the general public, can the Commission answer the following questions:
1. Can it indicate whether any directives exist, or are being drawn up, which lay down technical safety standards for the construction of dwellings?
2. Does it know what percentage of dwellings in the Member States might be a safety risk, either because of natural causes (earthquakes and floods) or because of the age of the building and the use of completely out-dated technologies?
3. Does it believe that part of the Structural Funds could be earmarked for construction work to make buildings safer?
4. In the alternative, and without waiting until 2006 to reform the objectives of the present Funds, can it provide in future budgets for the setting-up of an ad hoc Fund to give an incentive to use special bank loans for this purpose?
5. In view of the climatic changes which have occurred in various European regions and have led to many natural disasters in the past few years, can it initiate a study of the current situation in Europe to monitor sites at risk because of their geological features and to lay down, therefore, new technical standards for buildings?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(19 January 2000)
The Commission shares the fears expressed by the Honourable Members regarding the risk of residential buildings collapsing within the Community, apparently without any specific cause.
The Commission is aware of the need to harmonise the various types of works, products, materials and building systems, and is currently concluding work on the implementation of Council Directive 89/106/ EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1).
This Directive is based on the six fundamental requirements structural stability being the most important which products must meet in order to be incorporated permanently in construction works. It is therefore what is called a ‘new approach’ directive, in that it establishes a link between the works and the products, whose suitability must be proven. Suitability is assessed on the basis of compliance with the ‘harmonised’ technical specifications currently being drawn up by the standardisation bodies.
It is the responsibility of the Member States to assess risks to the stability of buildings in a natural disaster, as a function of their age.
In addition, Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 (2), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, does not provide for any earmarking of funds to restore and secure existing buildings, and at present there is no budget heading which provides a specific fund for this purpose. However, Article 2.2.(e) of the new Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Regional Development Fund (3) provides the possibility of cofinancing measures for ‘the protection and improvement of the environment, in particular taking account of the principles of precaution and preventative action in support of economic development …’.
The monitoring of regions considered to present a geological risk because of climate changes is also solely the responsibility of the Member States, while the development of technical parameters based on progress and new knowledge for example, binding measures will normally be taken into account in establishing harmonised technical specifications.
(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989. (2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (3) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999. C 280 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/99
by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: CITES and the hawksbill sea turtle
Can the Commission assure me that the EU will not be supporting the Cuban proposal for downlisting the hawksbill sea turtle from Appendix I to Appendix II at the next CITES Conference in 2000?
I believe that the Cuban justifications for downlisting are based on erroneous population models and biology and, furthermore, that if the hawksbill is downlisted, it will serve to fuel the existing illegal trade in sea turtle shell.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(1 February 2000)
The Community has, unfortunately, not yet been able to become a party to CITES. Those Member States that are party to this Convention will vote individually at the forthcoming 11th conference of the parties. In view of the existence of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1), there is Community competence on many of the issues to be discussed at the Conference, including the two Cuban proposals concerning hawksbill sea turtles. The position of the Community and its Member States on these issues, including the way in which the Member States which are party to CITES vote, is determined by the Council on the basis of a proposal from the Commission.
Experts from a number of Member States visited Cuba in September 1999 to examine the situation concerning hawksbill turtles. Trade controls appear to be good and the capture of turtles is well regulated. However, the impact of the harvest on the populations of this species is more difficult to assess because of the life history and biology of the species. The Commission will focus on this aspect when comparing these proposals with the scientific criteria established by CITES for judging such proposals. The Com- mission also wishes to take into account the opinions of the CITES secretariat and expert non- governmental organizations. As a consequence, no firm conclusion has been drawn to date.
(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.
(2000/C 280 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2492/99
by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Production of counterfeit goods in CEECs
According to reports by the UN Economic Commission for Europe, Central and Eastern Europe have become a thriving market for counterfeit goods, as Asia has been for some time, and such goods are reaching the EU’s internal market via those regions. Counterfeit goods production is also a major obstacle to increases in EU investment in Eastern Europe, as businesses see that they will not enjoy the requisite legal protection in the countries concerned.
How will the Commission step up its efforts to combat the manufacture and distribution of counterfeit goods in Eastern Europe? What will the Commission do to improve cooperation with the authorities of Eastern European countries in this regard?Is there any way in which the Commission can include measures against counterfeit goods in the pre-accession partnership programmes? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/55
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(28 January 2000)
The Commission refers to its reply given to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-3958/98 (1) which indicated that the Commission is closely monitoring the evolution of intellectual property protection in Central and Eastern Europe.
In this context, the Commission considers that in the large majority of the Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) substantive progress in the harmonisation of the legislation with the acquis has been achieved. However, certain shortcomings in the establishment of an adequate legal framework still exist. In addition, the administrative capacity relating to the enforcement of intellectual property rights still needs significant improvement and better administrative co-operation between the authorities is also needed.
Most of the CEEC countries are heading in the right direction and, on the whole, levels of piracy are decreasing, even though they remain high.
Bulgaria can be mentioned as a country which has achieved significant results in the fight against piracy during 1999.
The Commission will continue to give high priority to the fight against piracy in the framework of the enlargement negotiations.
(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 151.
(2000/C 280 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2493/99 by Dominique Souchet (UEN) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Export refunds for processed food products
Export refunds are essential for ensuring that some EU food sectors are able to continue exporting European processed agricultural products on international markets. They constitute a logical and legitimate form of compensation for the difference in raw material prices in the EU compared with international prices, and are an essential component of the principle of Community preference.
The Commission proposal aimed at reducing the refund budget by 4,5 % for products not included in Annex I had just been submitted at the time of the last meeting of the management committee. The proposal failed to obtain a qualified majority with 53 votes against, 28 abstentions and no votes in favour.
1. In view of this, does the Commission intend to adopt the proposal?
2. In the run-up to the WTO negotiations due to begin shortly in Seattle, does the Commission not consider that it is sending out a political signal that could undermine the maintenance of the principle of Community preference, which is a fundamental part of the CAP?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(26 January 2000)
The Honourable Member refers to the fixing of export refunds for products not covered by Annex I (ex Annex II) to the EC Treaty, which have been reduced by a flat-rate of 4,5 % as of 1 November 1999. This reduction is intended to ensure that spending on refunds for the sector not covered by Annex I remains within the appropriations set by the budgetary authority.
This measure does not undermine the principle of Community preference but is simply intended to ensure that, when refund rates are fixed, both the constraints that maintain substantial differences between agricultural product prices within the Community and worldwide and the discipline imposed on the Community budget and, in particular, on its agricultural component are taken into account. C 280 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Furthermore, the Commission has presented a communication (1) to the Council proposing certain specific measures, such as economy measures and the creation of an additional facility authorising easier access to inward processing. This will enable the Community processing industry to remain competitive in external markets.
(1) COM(99) 673 final.
(2000/C 280 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2505/99
by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(22 December 1999)
Subject: Water fluoridation
Can the Commission state whether it is prepared to review the existing legislation on drinking water so as to include a prohibition on water fluoridation, in line with fears raised by some of my constituents?
Can the Commission list the principal scientific studies which may underlie its decision not to address the fluoridation issue at EU level or to propose a prohibition on this process?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(17 January 2000)
Drinking water quality is regulated in the Community by Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (1), which will be replaced by 25 December 2003 by the recently adopted new drinking water Directive 98/83/EC (2). Both directives limit the maximum admissible concentration of fluoride in drinking water, regardless of its origin, i.e. naturally present or artificially added. The matter of fluoridation of water supplies lies within the Member States’ responsibility. The Member States, however, must respect the maximum limit set out in the directive. Member States policies on this matter depend on a number of factors, including local customs and habits which differ from one Member State to the other. Unquestionably, fluoridation is a contro- versial issue because of the positive or negative effects fluoride might have, depending on the concentra- tion of the substance in the drinking water.
The limit set out in the drinking water Directive is 1,5 milligrammes per litre (mg/l), which according to the view of the World health organisation (WHO) as expressed in its drinking water quality guidelines represents a good balance between the positive and negative effects of fluoride. Positive effects start around 0,5mg/l up to 2 mg/l. The more the concentration shifts upwards from 2mg/l the more the risk of negative effects is increased i.e. dental fluorosis or even skeletal fluorosis at very high concentrations.
Therefore, the answer to the first question is that the Commission is not considering a revision of the legislation, as the new drinking water Directive was adopted on November 1998 and it has to be implemented.
As for the second question, the principal reference is the WHO publication: ‘Guidelines for drinking water quality, second edition volume 2, Geneva 1996’. In this volume, information on fluoride can be found in pages 231-237 including a list of 18 relative references.
(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980. (2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/57
(2000/C 280 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2507/99 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 December 1999)
Subject: Fishing
On 7 November 1999, French vessels prevented over 50 Spanish fishing boats from leaving the port of Lorient, thus stopping the fishermen concerned from fishing for anchovy in waters in which (unlike their French colleagues) they are fully entitled to do so.
This is not, unfortunately, an isolated incident, since French fishermen are widely known to have behaved in such a way on previous occasions.
Could the Commission say what action is to be taken in order to guarantee the safety of Spanish fishermen?
What penalties is the Commission to impose by way of punishment for such behaviour?
What compensation is to be made available to the fishermen who suffered as a result of the incident?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 January 2000)
The Commission is aware of the closure of the port of Lorient by French fishermen and notes the rapid resolution of the conflict pursuant to a meeting between all interested parties.
All fleets exploiting resources in Community fishing waters do so in the pursuance of Community legislation and, when operating in the same area, resolve any conflicts arising from their fishing activities by common agreement between all fleets concerned.
The security of fishermen in the port of Lorient is the responsibility of the authorities in that port. These authorities are also responsible for citing any infringements which are committed and the subsequent prosecution of these infringements. Compensation for any damage, as a consequence of the above closure of the port, must be claimed in accordance with the applicable rules in France.
(2000/C 280 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2509/99 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 December 1999)
Subject: Actual number of fishing vessels using driftnets in 1997
In its combined reply of 8 October 1999 to questions P-1537/99 and E-1561/99 (1) concerning compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1239/98, the Commission gives the following figures for fishing vessels using driftnets in the North East Atlantic in 1997 (the most recent reference year for the gradual phasing-out of such nets): France: 43 vessels Ireland: 30 vessels United Kingdom: 5 vessels.
Leaving aside the case of Ireland, where the vagueness of the figure quoted makes it difficult to believe any statement to the effect that the country is complying with the phasing-out plan, the Commission itself, in its Report on enforcement of Community legislation concerning the use of driftnets in 1997 in the North East Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea (SEC(98) 477), provides other figures: France: 68 authorised and 35 in actual operation Ireland: 11 United Kingdom: 5. C 280 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Can the Commission account for this discrepancy in the figures for the countries other than the United Kingdom? When are the Commission’s files to be updated? What is to be the final figure selected, and why?
(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 34.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(20 January 2000)
The Commission relied on the data supplied and verified by the Member States in question regarding the number of vessels using drift nets in 1995, 1996 and 1997, but became aware that these did not tally with the number of vessels observed by inspectors during the inspection and monitoring campaigns carried out since 1995.
Prior to 1998 Community legislation did not require lists of vessels using drift nets to be reported as access to this method of fishing was unrestricted, nor did vessels need permits to use such nets. It transpires that some vessels did start casual fishing for tuna only to abandon it again, sometimes after only a few trips, whereas the figures in the annual reports on implementing Community legislation concerning use of drift nets in the north-east Atlantic and the Mediterranean relate to known vessels.
As stated in its reply to the Honourable Member’s questions P-1537/99 and E-1561/99 (1), the Commission wishes to emphasise that its inspectors will verify Member States’ data for 1995-97 when carrying out checks in accordance with Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (2).
(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 34. (2) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.
(2000/C 280 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2513/99 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission
(22 December 1999)
Subject: Third-country crews on board Community vessels
Since the beginning of the year, in order to take advantage of the liberalisation of cabotage and in their eagerness to cut costs, some European shipowners in the merchant navy and fisheries sectors have tried to replace their crews of Community seamen with low-cost crews made up of seamen from non-Community countries. According to reports from trade unions in the sector, the sole purpose of facilitating access by non-Community seamen to the market in question is to encourage precarious employment under working and social welfare conditions which are inferior to those laid down by law in the European employment market.
What view does the Commission take of this development, which effectively undermines the social rights of Community workers?
What measures is the Commission adopting and what action does it intend to take in order to put a stop to this practice of social dumping?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(14 February 2000)
The Commission is very concerned by the decline in employment of Community seamen and the corresponding increase in the employment of seamen from third countries under non-Community conditions both in maritime cabotage and transport between the Member States. There is no harmonisa- tion at Community level with respect to the Member States’ right to employ seamen from third countries. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/59
The national legislation of most Member States authorises the employment of seamen from third countries under the conditions applicable in their country of origin for international services and, to a lesser extent, for cabotage services. A minority of Member States only authorise the employment of Community seamen or seamen who are paid the same wages as their own nationals for these services. Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to martime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (1) authorises the host state to impose its own rules with respect to manning nationality, minimum rates of pay, working conditions and social security. This allows Member States which prohibit the employment of non-Community seamen to put on an equal footing all competing operators in the very sensitive island cabotage sector.
With regard to transport between Member States, on 29 April 1998 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive on manning conditions for regular passenger and ferry services operating between Member States (2). The proposal defines at Community level minimum working conditions, including pay, for seamen from third countries. The objective is to put operators on an equal footing by eliminating social dumping in this very labour-intensive sector.
The Commission also adopted a proposal amending Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 on maritime cabo- tage (2). This proposal allows the host state to impose its rules regarding the proportion of Community nationals in the crew for regular passenger and ferry services. This should rule out the employment of seamen from third countries under non-Community conditions in this sector.
Lastly, in 2000 the Commission will present a communication on the employment and training of seafarers. One of the objectives will be to promote the use of Community crews.
(1) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992. (2) OJ C 213, 9.7.1998.
(2000/C 280 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2515/99
by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission
(22 December 1999)
Subject: Taking processing projects into consideration in the proposal on flax
The Commission’s proposal for a new EU regulation on flax fibres creates problems for Finland, because it proposes that the production of flax for fibres should be made subject to a quota based on quantities cultivated in the past. In Finland, the growing of flax for fibres has hitherto been a small-scale operation.
The growing of flax for fibres is only in its infancy in Finland, and this is why the amount cultivated in recent years has been small, at only a few thousand hectares per year. At present Finnish agriculture is undergoing a structural change, with farms being forced to diversify into new directions and find new profitable forms of crop. One promising alternative seems to be the production of fibre flax, a plant which suits Finnish conditions very well. We have had per-hectare yields of the same order as in the best growing areas in the EU, and the cultivation of flax for fibres is therefore expected to increase considerably in the future. The imposition of quotas is the worst thing that could happen to Finnish flax production at this juncture. At least three new flax processing plants are currently being built in Finland, which will require in total by way of raw material the yield of at least 12 000 to 12 500 hectares of flax. If the Commission’s new flax regulation is implemented in its current form, it will deprive us of the opportunity to expand domestic cultivation and the new factories will thus have to operate with imported raw materials. These are not realistic conditions for developing the Finnish flax industry.
Furthermore, the requirement in the proposal that the product once made into fibre should contain not more than 5 % of shives is too strict for the Finnish insulating wool production industry. The Commission C 280 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
proposal on subsidies also places Finland at a disadvantage in view of the low reference harvests it sets for fibre flax crops, since the subsidies would be partly calculated on this basis. Different levels of aid are proposed for the processing of long and short fibres, even though the definition of the differences between the different types of fibre is not clear and their use in practice is largely the same.
What action will the Commission take to ensure that long- and short- fibre flax are not pointlessly separated from each other by these new definitions? What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that there are good conditions for the cultivation and processing of fibre flax in Finland as elsewhere? How does the Commission propose to protect the development of flax cultivation and processing and its prospects as a part of Finnish agriculture?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(20 January 2000)
The major increase in the areas sown with fibre flax and hemp in recent years has not been matched by a comparable expansion in output or in real market demand for these products. The support scheme has been destabilised by low-cost and very low-yield flax and hemp crops, developed with the sole purpose of generating entitlement to assistance.
A series of legal provisions have been adopted in recent years to step up controls and to try to prevent speculative crops. However, in view of the development of the areas cultivated, it is clear that these provisions have not had the desired effect. Their main consequence has been considerably to complicate the legislation.
The Commission’s reform proposal (1) is intended to put the sector back on a healthy footing and to take account of the technical developments of recent years, in particular in relation to new uses. The proposed scheme is intended to ensure that economic activity is maintained in the traditional production of long- fibre flax for use in the textiles industry, but it also aims at helping other economically viable outlets to become established and find stable markets. Finnish flax producers will have an opportunity to develop the crop as long as their output matches a demand on the market. However, subsidy-driven production will be restricted.
The proposal thus aims at achieving balance on the market for new flax and hemp products, while continuing the effort to simplify management and tighten up budgeting already under way in a number of other sectors covered by the common agriculture policy (CAP). In the circumstances, budget stabilisers must be introduced to prevent any fraudulent increase in quantities eligible for assistance and to avoid the risk of Community expenditure running out of control. Bearing in mind the need for rigorous budgeting, the stabilisers must be calculated on the basis of figures corresponding as far as possible to real levels of output rather than on the basis of somewhat problematic forward estimates of expansion.
As to the differentiation between long-fibre and short-fibre flax, two products with quite distinct markets, the proposal provides for criteria to be laid down in the implementing arrangements to be introduced by the Commission at a later stage. Implementing rules are the most suitable instrument for transposing technical definitions into law, because they are more adaptable to any technical progress in the sector.
(1) COM(99) 576 final.
(2000/C 280 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2517/99 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission
(22 December 1999)
Subject: The ‘Sviluppo Italia’ company and breaches of Community rules
The ‘Sviluppo Italia’ company was set up by a legislative decree of the Italian Government (1/99) to provide assistance to depressed areas of the Mezzogiorno region. In addition to resources from the 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/61
revolving fund set up by law 208/99, its original capital stock is also made up of Community funds and its relations with the public authorities are governed by special agreements not subject to public accounting procedures.
Does the Commission not consider that this situation is incompatible with Community law on competi- tion, use of Community funds and state aids, particularly in the light of the considerations set out below?
1. Public funds of Community origin intended to finance business promotion programmes in depressed areas are being used to provide start-up (risk) capital and liquidity flows (finance) for a single (joint stock) company formally belonging to the private sector and not subject to government control. These funds could be used for purposes other than those stipulated with little real prospect of doing anything to assist the local situation they were originally intended to alleviate.
2. Given the vagueness of the role assigned to the ‘Sviluppo Italia’ company and the impossibility of separating its accounts for activities undertaken in the public interest and its business activities, the company enjoys a dominant position on the market for development services and financial services, while being able to evade public accounting procedures, giving it a privileged position as sole partner, to the detriment of new or existing businesses in the sector.
3. The ‘Sviluppo Italia’ company has the legal personality of a private firm and thus the capacity to evade the securities and guarantees required of a company subject to public law as regard the organisation and performance of its activities (parliamentary control, auditing, public accounting procedures and recruitment by competitive examination).
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(14 February 2000)
Member States are competent to manage resources deriving from structural funds. Therefore, the choice to merge all the State’s holdings in a single company, constituted as a joint stock company, is not relevant under Community state aid rules. Article 222 (ex Article 166) of the EC Treaty does not prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership. Accordingly the creation, by a Member State, of a holding in the form of joint stock company operating on the market does not constitute, per se, an infringement of Community competition rules.
In any case, the commercial activities performed by Sviluppo Italia will be subject to the Community rules on competition and on structural funds.
The Commission is not informed as to the involvement of state aid elements in favour of Sviluppo Italia. If information should come to the attention of the Commission, it will examine it and take a decision in this respect.
(2000/C 280 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2520/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(22 December 1999)
Subject: New Finnish application concerning egg production aid
In reply to my question No E-1710/99 (1), the Commission explained that Finnish aid for egg production under Article 138 must cease from the new year. It has since come to my notice that the Finnish Government has submitted a new application to allow production aid based on a different article. Can the Commission guarantee that the aid which ceases at the end of the year will not be allowed to be replaced by any other form of government aid?
(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000. C 280 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(26 January 2000)
At its meeting of 22 December 1999, in accordance with the provisions of Article 141 of the Act of Accession, the Commission approved a programme of state aids for Finnish farmers covering the period 2000-2003. This programme includes an aid to be granted in respect of laying hens, which is recalculated from the aid allowed by Article 138 of the Act of Accession for eggs up to the end of 1999. The new aid is degressive, with an average annual decrease of 4,5 % from the amount allowed for 1999.
The Commission took this decision after careful examination of a report presented by the Finnish authorities which showed that there were serious difficulties remaining for Finnish agriculture resulting from Accession. However, the overall amount of aid approved by the Commission is below that originally requested by Finland.
(2000/C 280 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2521/99
by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(22 December 1999)
Subject: Egg collection and dating
In reply to my question No E-1712/99 (1), the Commission explained that Sweden and Finland are allowed an exception to EU rules on egg collection to the effect that collection may take place once a week provided that the eggs are kept in cold storage. Does this exception mean that eggs collected once a week may also be dated 25 days ahead?
(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 18.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(26 January 2000)
The common marketing standards for eggs provide that the date of minimum durability (‘best-before date’) must be indicated on large and small packs containing grade A eggs (Article 10(1)e) of Council Regulation (EEC) no 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for eggs) (1). According to Article 16(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) no 1274/91 of 15 May 1991 (2) implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 the best-before date corresponds to the sell-by date plus seven days.
Regarding the sell-by date, Article 3 of Council Decision 94/371/EC of 20 June 1994 laying down specific public health conditions for the putting on the market of certain types of eggs (3) provides that eggs shall be delivered to the consumer within 21 days after laying. The best-before date is therefore not more than 28 days after laying.
(1) OJ L 173, 6.7.1990. (2) OJ L 121, 16.5.1991. (3) OJ L 168, 2.7.1994. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/63
(2000/C 280 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2524/99
by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Sellafield and Cap de la Hague reprocessing plants
Substantial data from university clinics, public monitoring bodies and reliable environmental organisations show that nuclear contamination of European seas and the north-east Atlantic is continuing. The Commission is also aware of a petition (No 393/95) on this subject which sets out the figures concerned. In 1998, the 12 countries bordering the north Atlantic and the European seas undertook to take rigorous measures, in accordance with the OSPAR Convention, and set themselves the target of zero measurements of synthetic nucleotides by the year 2020.
1. How is this to be achieved, when radioactive pollution of the sea off Sellafield and Cap de la Hague by many hazardous substances has massively increased over the last decade?
2. What steps have the Commission and the Member States taken to date to implement the above objectives?
3. What further steps will be taken, and when?
4. (a) How often did the Commission inspect the two plants between 1989 and 1999?
(b) Is it true that each was only inspected once?
(c) Does the Commission consider that a single inspection in ten years fulfils the requirements of Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty?
(d) When did the Commission establish that the resources for meeting such an important obligation were insufficient? When were the appropriate resources requested (indicate date)?
5. Why does the Commission, in its assessments of both plants, rely solely on measurements and interpretations provided by the operators of the plants and on public authorities in the operators’ countries?
6. Why has the Commission not listened to the alarm bells rung by independent bodies (e.g. the University of Wales) and ignored their findings?
7. What does the Commission intend to do to prevent any further flouting of the principles under- pinning the OSPAR Convention and of the obligations stemming from the Euratom Treaty?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(10 January 2000)
At the time of the Sintra statement in 1998 the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Commission also produced a strategy with regard to radioactive substances. The Commission has been working, along with other contracting parties and the OSPAR secretariat, on the detailed interpretation and implementation of that strategy. A working group, established under OSPAR (OSPAR RAD) is producing a document for discussion at the next OSPAR RAD meeting to be held in Luxembourg in January 2000, hosted by the Commission. This document discusses trends in radioactive discharges and other factors relevant to the implementation of the strategy. The Commission is also in the process of updating the Marína project on the radiological exposure of the population of the Community from radioactivity in Northern European marine waters (EUR 12483), having already begun a pilot study. It will be receiving the views of OSPAR RAD on the conclusions of the pilot study to ensure that the subsequent work contributes effectively to the implementation of the OSPAR strategy on radioactive substances. C 280 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
The Commission performed verifications under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty at Sellafield in December 1993, and at Cap de la Hague in July 1996. At the time of the decision to reactivate the verifications (December 1989) it was envisaged that reprocessing plants would be visited once every three years. The effort is thus less than was originally considered sufficient. The Commission has started to make available the necessary resources in 1998. A communication to the Council and to the Parliament is being prepared which will provide an overview of the verifications carried out in the period 1990-1999, together with an estimate of the resources required to establish a systematic programme.
The Commission maintains a watching brief on the situation with regard to levels of radioactivity in the environment on the basis of the information received under Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty, site specific data provided by Member States authorities, which may include results of measurements carried out by the operators, and other sources of information brought to the Commission’s attention. In this context, the Commission has had no specific representations about the work undertaken by the University of Wales.
The Commission is undertaking actions appropriate to the OSPAR strategy with regard to radioactive substances. It is, however, a matter for the OSPAR commission to coordinate and ensure implementation of the OSPAR strategy through the establishment of an action plan and the development of procedures for review of progress achieved through the strategy. The Commission is committed, along with other contracting parties, to continued involvement in the work of the OSPAR commission and is participating in the relevant fora established by that commission to ensure proper support and direction.
(2000/C 280 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2530/99
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(4 January 2000)
Subject: Safety at European Union ports
The recent tragic accident involving the passenger vessel Superfast III in which 12 people were killed in a fire which broke out 14 nautical miles from the port of Patras highlights the inadequacy of Community directives and regulations which make provision for safety during sea passages, but fail to provide for the safety and health of passengers and workers at ports and controls on the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers and vehicles.
Will the Commission say:
1. Does safety at ports constitute part of the common policy on maritime safety?
2. Given the enormous annual movement of passengers through EU ports, has it taken any measures to protect the safety and health of passengers and workers at ports, and, if so, what measures?
3. Does it intend to take measures to ensure adequate controls on freight vehicles so that they do not constitute a threat to the safety of vessels while at sea?
4. As part of the follow-up to the Green paper on EU ports, does it intend to provide for mandatory minimum standards at community ports regarding the safety and health of passengers, bearing in mind that more than 1 million persons travel annually through EU ports?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(8 February 2000)
1. Safety in ports has not been specifically addressed in the Commission communication on a common policy on safe seas (1), which primarily focused on identifying, based upon the international maritime safety conventions adopted within the International maritime organisation, possible Community measures to 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/65
enhance safety at sea. The Parliament, with its resolution of 11 March 1994 on a common policy on safe seas (2), approved the analysis contained in the Commission communication and called for a careful and speedy execution of the action programme contained therein.
In its green paper on sea ports and maritime infrastructure (3), the Commission further highlighted the importance of the role of Community ports in implementing and enforcing the Community’s maritime safety legislation and in ensuring a high level of port services that are intrinsically related to the safety of ships.
2. The Commission addressed the safety of ferry passengers at sea by proposing a series of Community measures in the aftermath of the Estonia accident in September 1994, and following the requests from Parliament and Council to provide for a coherent and stringent ferry safety regime in the Community. These measures are Council Regulation (EC) No 3051/95 of 8 December 1995, on the safety management of ro-ro ferries (4), Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules for passenger ships (5), Council Directive 98/41/EC of 18 June 1998 on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships, operating to or from parts of the Member States of the Communities (6), and Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services (7).
The safety of workers in ports is covered by a number of directives adopted in the social field in particular covering issues related to safety and health at work. A listing of this legislation is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
3. The control of lorries to be loaded on board is governed by the international conventions on maritime safety and marine pollution prevention, which include special requirements for the carriage of dangerous goods in packaged form or in solid form in bulk. These international requirements have been complemented by Community legislation which imposes reporting obligations on vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods (8).
4. The Commission has no intention to table, in the framework of the follow-up to its green paper on seaports and maritime infrastructure, proposals for mandatory minimum standards in the Community with regard to the safety and hygiene of passengers. However, the Commission intends to issue a general communication on safety at sea, and responsibilities of flag states, port states and industry related more specifically to ship safety.
(1) COM(93) 66 final. (2) OJ C 91, 28.3.1994. (3) COM(97) 678 final. (4) OJ L 320, 30.12.1995. (5) OJ L 144, 15.5.1998. (6) OJ L 188, 2.7.1998. (7) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999. (8) Council Directive 93/75/EEC, of 13 September 1993 concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods, OJ L 247, 5.10.1993.
(2000/C 280 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2534/99
by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(4 January 2000)
Subject: Free movement of doctors and patient safety
In its Explanatory Memorandum attached to the proposed ‘SLIM Directive’ simplifying and updating the EU sectoral Directives on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications (COM(97) 638 final) (1) the C 280 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Commission signalled its intention to ask the Council to abrogate the existing advisory committees on the training of certain health professionals (doctors, nurses, dentists, midwives and pharmacists). Should the Council comply with this request, the Commission intends to reconstitute these advisory committees by Commission decision, giving them a simplified structure and a much narrower remit. Specifically, the advisory committees would no longer have a mandate to promote free movement of health professionals by proactively updating the minimum standards of competence in the professions concerned. Rather, the advisory committee would only advise on free movement problems referred to them by the Commission.
Is the Commission aware that, in anticipation of a Council Decision to abrogate the existing Advisory Committee on Medical Training (ACMT), the Commission’s services have informed doctors’ representatives that the Commission plans to initiate no new work in this committee?
Is the Commission aware that on 12 November 1999 the umbrella organisation representing Member State Medical Associations, the Standing Committee of European Doctors, unanimously condemned the Commission’s cancellation of the 30 November 1999 plenary of the ACMT and its refusal to initiate work in the ACMT?
Is the Commission aware that Europe’s doctors regard the Commission’s plans for a new ACMT with no mandate to update EU minimum standards for general and specialist medical training as a threat to the welfare of patients around the EU?
In light of these criticisms from EU doctors, is the Commission satisfied that its current policy on the ACMT and its proposals concerning the future remit of the ACMT comply with the Commission’s obligation under Article 152 of the EC Treaty to ensure ‘a high level of human health protection’ in the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities?
What steps, if any, has the Commission taken to reassure itself that its policy and proposals in relation to medical training will have no negative health effects?
(1) OJ C 28, 26.1.1998, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(8 February 2000)
It should first be pointed out that the situation faced by the Advisory Committee on Medical Training (ACMT) is no different to that faced by similar committees. There are in fact six advisory committees on the training of certain health professionals (doctors, pharmacists, dentists, veterinary surgeons, nurses and midwives). These six committees were set up by the Council under the sectoral directives facilitating freedom of movement for the categories of health professionals in question. These committees have the same operating rules.
The first question concerning the work of the ACMT should be examined in light of the reform of the six advisory committees concerned. In fact, in response to the initiative entitled Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market (SLIM), the Commission announced in its Communication to the Council and Parliament on the SLIM initiative (1) dated 6 November 1996 that it intended to rationalise the way in which the advisory committees on training operated. The measures planned were in fact enlarged upon in the explanatory memorandum attached to the proposed directive to which the Honourable Member refers. Parliament adopted the proposal for a directive at first reading on 2 July 1998. The measures planned should come into force on 1 January 2001 and new committees should be set up on that date.
The current period is therefore a transitional period during which the committees will be able to finish ongoing work without undertaking any new work which they cannot complete by 1 January 2001. The 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/67
Commission was therefore justified in informing all the committees concerned in the case of the ACMT, at its meeting on 5 February 1999 about this transitional situation and how it would affect the way in which work was organised. As a result, the ACMT decided to set up informal working parties which would operate independently without financial assistance from the Commission. In this context, the committee agreed that the decision whether or not to hold a meeting provisionally scheduled for 30 November 1999 would depend on how much progress had been made with this informal work.
With regard to the second question on the cancellation of the meeting of 30 November 1999, the Commission would point out that, in general, owing to material and budgetary constraints, a rigorous selection must be made of the requests received from the numerous committees that exist for permission to hold meetings. The meeting of 30 November 1999 was cancelled because no adequate agenda had been drawn up. In fact, the meeting could not be held on that date owing to the state of progress with the informal work mentioned above. The decision to cancel the meeting was therefore justified and in keeping with what the ACMT had itself agreed in this regard.
As to the third question on the protection of patients’ interests, it should be noted that the main objective of the training criteria set out in Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993, designed to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas (2), is to establish the minimum training requirements which are considered necessary and sufficient for the mutual recognition of medical diplomas. In fact, as the title indicates, the directive seeks to facilitate the free movement of doctors. To this end, the directive provides for a system of mutual recognition of diplomas based on the observance of minimum training requirements. Otherwise, the organisation and content of training is largely the responsibility of the Member States, in keeping with Articles 149 and 150 (ex Articles 126 and 127) of the EC Treaty. Both these articles expressly rule out any harmonisation of training at Community level. Finally, the protection of human health and patients’ interests also falls mainly within the scope of competence of the Member States.
With regard to the fourth question concerning policy on the ACMT and future measures, the Commission would point out that the situation faced by this committee is no different from that faced by other similar committees. Moreover, the Commission wishes to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that the ACMT seeks to ensure a comparably demanding standard of training for doctors in keeping with Council Decision 75/364/EEC of 16 June 1975 setting up this committee (3). The standard of training implemented in each Member State depends on the rules adopted by each Member State, it being understood that each Member State is obliged to observe the minimum training requirements provided for in Directive 93/16/EEC.
In this context, the Commission will continue to organise meetings between the representatives of the competent authorities from each Member State. The appropriate instrument to this end is the Committee of Senior Officials on Public Health established by Council Decision 75/365/EEC of 16 June 1975 (3).
Finally, although the purpose of the new advisory committee will be to give opinions on the main subject of Directive 93/16/EEC i.e. the mutual recognition of doctors’ diplomas to allow the free movement of doctors this does not prevent the committee from taking account of subjects relating to doctors’ training within the framework of the mutual recognition of their diplomas and in keeping with the obligations which the Commission must meet under Article 152 ( ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty.
With regard to the fifth question on the measures taken by the Commission to ensure that its policy and proposals concerning medical training do not have an adverse effect on health, the Commission would point out that, within the limits of its jurisdiction, it is cooperating closely with the Member States and the professionals concerned in order to ensure that all interests are taken into account. The measures planned by the Commission to reform some of the advisory committees including the ACMT are not likely to change this situation.
(1) COM(96) 559 final. (2) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993. (3) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975. C 280 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2537/99 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission
(4 January 2000)
Subject: Support to American agriculture sector
In an article headlined ‘America gives farming more support than EU’ published in the Agrarisch Dagblad (Agricultural Daily, Netherlands) for 14 October 1999, a Commission official is reported as stating that in the 1999-2000 farming year the United States will be paying out more in agricultural subsidies than the European Union. Price support in the United States is said to be running at some 20 billion dollars annually.
Can the Commission indicate what forms of support the United States grants its agricultural sector, and will it provide figures to support the statement attributed to the Commission official?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(31 January 2000)
The American budget for agriculture at € 63 and € 69 billion for the years 1999 and 2000 respectively is more than 50 % higher than that for the common agricultural policy (CAP). It should be pointed out, however, that much of the American agriculture budget expenditure is only of indirect benefit to producers. The food, nutrition and consumer services for example which accounted for € 35 billion of the 1999 agriculture budget benefit American farmers indirectly in that they promote consumption of certain food products, which are virtually all sourced from American farms.
In calendar year 1999, direct federal government payments to American farmers amounted to € 22,5 billion or the equivalent of € 11 000 per farm, double the average payment to Community farmers.
The principal mechanism for supporting American farmers is through Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA) payments which are direct payments to farmers and are fixed on the basis of historic production and loan deficiency payments which amount to the difference between market prices and a pre-determined amount per bushel, known as the loan rate.
In 1998 and 1999, the American government supplemented these payments already available to farmers by about € 15 billion in total through two ‘emergency’ packages, which was distributed on the basis of the data available through the AMTA system.
(2000/C 280 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2540/99 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Planned golf course in Doonbeg, Co. Clare, Ireland
In 1997 an American golf course company, Landmark National, of Columbus, Ohio, agreed with Shannon Development, the Irish State Agency responsible for rural development in the Shannon area of Ireland, to develop a ‘world class leisure and golf links resort’, including a 51 bedroom hotel and 80 chalets, on unspoiled sand dunes on the coast of County Clare.
The location had been long recognised for its nature conservation values, having been listed nationally and in the Clare County Development Plan for protection. The site’s importance was confirmed in April 1993 when it was resurveyed with EU LIFE funding. This importance was again confirmed in 1997 when it was again resurveyed with EU LIFE funding and designated as a proposed Special Area of Conservation (SAC) of 266 hectares, notified to the European Commission on 11 April 1997. [Site Code 1007]. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/69
In February 1998, without any scientific study, the area was reduced from 266 hectares to 52 hectares and the Site Code changed from 1007 to 2250 by the Irish Authorities which in November 1998 enabled the golf development project to proceed. The proposed development was to be part funded by £2,4 million from the European Regional Development Fund under the Operational Programme for Tourism 1994-1999.
A study which was commissioned in January 1999 by the relevant Irish authorities from Ireland’s leading conchologist Eveleyn Moorkens into the presence of the rare snail listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive 92/43 Vertigo angustior has proved that the reduction of boundaries had left the majority of the habitat of the snail outside the boundaries of the SAC, and that to maintain the favourable conservation status of the snail the boundaries must be expanded to include the area excluded the year before. The report was not made available on the national planning oral hearing in June 1999 at which the author was present. The national scientific authorities stated at that time that the development would not have a significant impact on any species listed in the Directive in spite of the fact that the report states that ‘changes in topography’ (which are required by the development proposal) are prohibited.
Can the Commission explain what measures it intends to take in order to reestablish the original boundaries of the Special Area of Conservation and protect the habitat of Vertigo angustior? How can the Commission accept that a golf development project which is even partially financed through the Structural Fund’s assistance damages a species protected under Directive 92/43? Does the Commission intend to open a procedure for infringement of Community law (Article 226 of the EU Treaty), and especially of Directive 92/43, against the Irish Government?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(20 January 2000)
The Commission is aware of the issues raised by the Honourable Member as a result of the investigation of complaints made about the project. In February 1999, the Commission lodged an application against Ireland before the Court of justice under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty for failure to transmit a complete list of sites for purposes of Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (1). The Commission inter alia cited the failure to notify the original proposed special area of conservation at Doonbeg. Since then, the Irish authorities have notified a site at Doonbeg, which, as the Honourable Member has noted, is significantly smaller than the original site (as well as having a different configuration). The report cited by the Honourable Member provides strong evidence that the site reduction was not scientifically justified in the case of vertigo angustior since the new site excludes most of the species population at Doonbeg. The Commission has accordingly requested the Irish authorities to propose a site which completely reflects the presence of this species at Doonbeg. However, to date, the Irish authorities have declined to do so. Having regard to the scope of the existing procedure before the Court, the Commission does not consider it necessary or appropriate to start a new procedure.
By letter dated 14 December 1999, the Commission has informed the Irish authorities that the grant of the Community assistance to the above mentioned project is to be suspended, for an amount corresponding to the aid foreseen for the project in question, from the date of receipt of the letter.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2000/C 280 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2543/99
by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(4 January 2000)
Subject: EU enlargement, free movement of doctors and patient safety
When the EU enlarges, doctors and other health professionals in the new member states will have the right to have their qualifications recognised, and to practice their professions throughout the EU. C 280 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
What steps is the Commission taking to verify that standards of medical training in the applicant countries comply with the minimum EU standards laid down in Directive 93/16/EEC (1)?
What role in this process of verification has the Commission afforded to:
1. representatives of the practising medical profession in the EU?
2. representatives from academic medicine and medical schools in the EU?
3. representatives of Member State competent authorities?
4. the counterparts of each of the above in the applicant countries?
5. the Advisory Committee on Medical Training?
If no verification process has yet started, what plans does the Commission have to initiate such a verification process? What would be the role in this process of each of the possible stakeholders identified above?
(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(27 January 2000)
The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it is taking a number of steps to verify compliance of the candidate countries with the acquis in general, as indeed for the minimum Community standards of medical training laid down in Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other formal qualifications.
The screening process, which has taken place for all candidate countries (except Turkey) and which covered the acquis in force up to 31 December 1998, has enabled the Commission to gather information on standards of medical training in these countries. This information will be continually updated between now and accession, as the acquis develops and as candidate countries continue to prepare for membership of the Union. Regular reports are made to the Council on the position in the candidate countries, as it is the Member States which must finally decide on accessions.
In addition to the screening, the Commission considers that the necessary structures and tools are in place to ensure effective monitoring of progress and verification. Through the Europe agreement institutions, the regular reports, the accession partnerships and the national programme for the adoption of the acquis, the Commission is afforded every opportunity to verify compliance of the candidate countries with Directive 93/16/EEC, as indeed for the acquis in general.
The Honourable Member questions the role played in this process by various interests within the Community and within the acceding countries, such as the practising medical profession, representatives from academic medicine and medical schools, representatives of national authorities and the advisors committee on medical training (ACMT). Within the Community’s institutional framework, it is the role of the Commission to report to the Council and for the Member States represented in the Council to ensure that their authorities and other interested parties are informed of the position as appropriate. The acceding countries are, of course, responsible for their own procedures in this process. The ACMT has, in the past, been kept informed of the general progress being made in the accession context, but without any question of duplication of the correct procedures for the conduct of the accession negotiation.
As the Honourable Member can see, the verification process has already commenced and is being carried out in the way described above. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/71
(2000/C 280 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2544/99 by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission
(4 January 2000)
Subject: Implementation of TACIS projects in disarray
The TACIS projects, launched with great expectations, have not necessarily been implemented as hoped, partly as a result of the EU’s unwieldy bureaucracy. It is now proposed as an option that the EU should not grant any further TACIS funds to its neighbouring regions until the old programmes have been implemented. The implementation of the programmes is hampered by the fact that the opportunity to make direct investments is disproportionately small. Under the current regulation only 10 % of the funds allocated may be used for investment. Partly for this reason, many of the TACIS programmes already approved are still on ice. If the threat to halt the allocation of new resources was carried out, this would detract from the TACIS CBS programmes, which seek inter alia to improve border security and in particular eliminate development problems arising from the remote situation of border areas.
The most serious shortcoming of the CBS programmes is felt to be their separateness from the Interreg programme, which also seeks to alleviate the problems caused by border location and to increase cross- border cooperation. The TACIS funds, unlike the Interreg funds, are intended for the use of our Russian partners. However, the majority of the euros spent under TACIS have been channelled by Western planning and consultation agencies into their own pockets. Within the framework of TACIS more money should be spent on direct investment rather than on consultations.
1. What measures does the Commission propose to take to ensure that TACIS projects can continue uninterrupted and operate as smoothly as possible?
2. What measures has the Commission taken / is the Commission still taking to ensure the compat- ibility and coordination of the TACIS and Interreg programmes, which was already proposed at an earlier stage?
3. How does the Commission propose to improve the making of direct investments and reduce excessive consultations?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(1 February 2000)
The Commission would first of all assure the Honourable Members that it has no plans to suspend current TACIS projects or stop funding of new projects. This applies equally to the cross-border co-operation programme. On the contrary, the new Regulation (1), which has just entered into force, underlines the priority given by the Commission to the TACIS programme. The investment ceiling of 10 % in the old Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 1279/96 of 25 June 1996 (2) has not had a negative impact on the implementation of the programmes. It is also important to recall that the Interreg and the cross-border co- operation programmes have different objectives and legal bases. This has a bearing on the co-ordination between the two programmes.
The answers to the three questions are:
1. There is no question of suspending the co-operation as a whole. Instead, the new Regulation marks a new start for the important co-operation between the Community and the partner states in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The new Regulation strongly emphasises regional and cross-border co- operation, with particular attention to enlargement. Measures are also foreseen to increase efficiency, by concentrating on fewer areas of activities and selecting fewer but larger actions.
2. Co-ordination between Interreg and TACIS is already taking place and will continue at the project level, both through the design of projects and by giving high priority to those projects which are supported by matching funds of the relevant programmes. This has proved successful in the context of the support for the Finnish/Russian border crossing points. Moreover synergy between the two programmes will be improved through increased co-ordination at the programming level, in the definition of objectives and areas of co-operation. C 280 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
3. The main aim of the programme as set out in the new Regulation remains know-how transfer. However, up to 20 % of the budget may now be used for investment promotion subject to certain conditions. The Commission believes that this increased ceiling creates significant scope for more investment prospects.
(1) OJ L 12, 18.1.2000. (2) OJ L 165, 4.7.1996.
(2000/C 280 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2545/99 by Maurizio Turco (TDI) and Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission
(4 January 2000)
Subject: Five-year EU action plan to combat drugs: information and evaluation
The European Union allocates a considerable amount of funding to the fight against drugs, as is indicated in the Communication from the Commission on a European Union action plan to combat drugs, which gives the figures for 1998. Multiple budget lines are involved, covering more than a single pillar, ranging from prevention to the funding of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, and from the Phare and Tacis programmes to North-South cooperation and cooperation with the countries of Latin America.
While the Commission Communication referred to above sketches an overall picture of EU activity in the fight against drugs, it does not provide more specific information about the individual projects which have been or are to be funded. Moreover, by contrast with the wishes expressed by the European Parliament and with the undertakings given by the Commission itself in the 1995-1999 five-year plan, there is no full and exhaustive evaluation of the preceding five-year action plan.
Will the Commission therefore provide the European Parliament with a brief but detailed picture giving the following information in respect of each budget line involved in the fight against drugs, for previous years and for the current financial year:
the projects which have been funded and the amount of funding received,
the recipients and managers of the funds allocated,
the objectives that it was intended to achieve,
the means deployed to achieve the objectives,
the results actually obtained,
the checks and evaluations of individual projects or programmes carried out by the European Union.
Will the Commission also state when it will issue an overall analysis evaluating the projects undertaken as part of the 1995-1999 five-year action plan.
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(16 February 2000)
The Commission agrees that evaluation should play an important role in all activities in the field of drugs. In its communication on a European Union action plan to combat drugs (2000-2004) (1) the Commission proposed that external experts should evaluate Community activities during this period and that the Commission should conduct a mid-term review of the action plan which would be presented to the Council and the Parliament.
However, the action plan acknowledged that efforts at the Community level in the period 1995-1999 in the field of evaluation had been insufficient. The Commission is not therefore able to respond fully to the question. Nevertheless, the main programmes to combat drugs have either already been evaluated or are in the process of being evaluated. The Commission sent to the Parliament on 14 October 1999, an interim report on the implementation of the programmes of Community action on the prevention of cancer, AIDS and certain other communicable diseases, and drug dependence within the framework for action in the 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/73
field of public health (1996-2000) (2) and the final report is now available. The Commission has launched an evaluation to be completed by April 2000 of the OISIN and Falcone programmes, which cover Justice and Home Affairs. The Commission has launched an evaluation of the Community’s North/South Cooperation in the fight against drugs and drug addiction since 1991, which should be completed by October 2000.
In addition, the Commission has sent the Parliament the agenda and the working documents for the meetings of the committee of the programme of Community action on the prevention of drug dependence (1996-2000); annual reports on the activities of the OISIN and Falcone programmes, including a description of the projects financed each year, and annual reports in 1996, 1997 and 1998 on the implementation of Council Regulation 2046/97 of 13 October 1997 on North-South cooperation in the campaign against drugs and drug addiction.
More detailed information on these programmes and others that concern drugs are transmitted direct to the Secretariat of the Parliament and to the Honourable Members.
(1) COM(99) 239 final. (2) COM(99) 463 final.
(2000/C 280 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2551/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(4 January 2000)
Subject: Financial services ombudsman
Would the Commission please state whether it is satisfied with the adequacy of consumer redress procedures in the case of an internet bank which is based in one Member State but takes deposits or makes loans in others?
If not, will it consider making proposals for means of redress for consumers/borrowers/bank depositors such as the ombudsman scheme in the UK or other ’soft law’ schemes which fall short of having to take civil action in the host country of the bank concerned?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(24 February 2000)
The possibility of obtaining out-of-court consumer redress in case of a conflict between a bank and its customer exists in nearly all the Member States. These schemes also normally cover bank services which are offered via the Internet. With regard to cross-border transactions, the present situation is unsatisfactory since there is little cross-border co-operation between the existing complaint bodies.
As said in the action plan for implementing the framework for financial markets (1) the Commission is encouraging networking between these bodies with a view to resolving cross-border disputes by develop- ment of an Union-wide complaints network. The operation of this network will be based on the Commission Recommendation 98/257 of 30.3.1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes (2).
A first meeting on cross-border redress with representatives from national complaint bodies in the banking and insurance sectors was held in October 1999 and the second in February 2000. There is wide-spread support from national complaint bodies to co-operate effectively cross-border. Progress will be reported in the regular progress report on the action plan.
(1) COM(99) 232 final. (2) COM(98) 198 final. C 280 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2552/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(4 January 2000)
Subject: Possible lower VAT rates on labour intensive services
Would the Commission please publish, for each Member State, a list of services for which Member States have applied to levy a reduced VAT rate under the provisions of the directive on reduced rates of VAT on labour intensive services?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(8 February 2000)
The Commission has published the list requested by the Honourable Member in its proposal for a Council decision authorising Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain labour-intensive services in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 28(6) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1).
(1) COM(99) 705 final.
(2000/C 280 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2561/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(11 January 2000)
Subject: Jurisdiction of deposit insurance
Would the Commission please state what deposit insurance arrangements would apply to a UK depositor who placed sterling deposits via the internet with a bank currently advertised as First-e Bank, apparently the trading name of the Banque d’Escompte in Paris?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(14 February 2000)
In order to give a precise answer to the question, the Commission would need to have some additional information about the facts of the case. However, on a general basis Directive 94/19/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994, on deposit- guarantee schemes (1) stipulates that Member States shall ensure that there is a guarantee scheme within their territory and that the Member State’s scheme also covers the depositors at branches set up by credit institutions in other Member States. The Directive is also valid, by special agreement, in the three other European economic area (EEA) states; Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
If deposits were placed within e.g. a French institution, situated in France, the French deposit guarantee scheme would apply regardless of whether the deposits were transferred via Internet, the nationality of the depositor or the currency of the deposits (as long as deposits are in euros or one of the currencies of Member States). The French deposit guarantee amounts to € 60 000 per depositor. It is subject to a number of possible exemptions, e.g. as regards the type of depositor, as mentioned in the Directive.
From 1 January 2000, branches of Community credit institutions situated in other Member States (and the three EEA states) are also obliged to offer the same deposit guarantee as their parent credit institutions. The credit institution and its Community branches are thus regarded as one legal entity. If one takes the example of a French branch situated in the United Kingdom, it must thus offer a deposit guarantee of € 60 000, just as in France. This is a new provision. Previously, according to Article 4(1) of the Directive, such branches were not allowed to offer a higher guarantee than the prevailing level in the host country. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/75
However, this clause expired at the end of 1999 and the Commission has not proposed any further prolongation in its recent report (2) to the Council and the Parliament.
The Directive is only applicable in Member States (and by special agreement in the EEA states). This means that deposits which are placed in a branch of a Community credit institution situated outside the Community (or the EEA), are not normally covered by the national deposit guarantee schemes. Instead, credit institution branches in third countries are submitted to host country rules.
(1) OJ L 135, 31.5.1994. (2) Report from the Commission on the application of the export prohibition clause, Article 4(1) of the Directive on deposit guarantee schemes (94/19/EC); COM(99) 722 final.
(2000/C 280 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2562/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(11 January 2000)
Subject: Deposit insurance
Would the Commission please tabulate the existing provisions for insurance or guarantee of deposits with banks in each Member State?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(17 February 2000)
The provisions for deposit guarantee schemes in Member States are tabulated in the annex to the Commission report (1) on the Directive on deposit guarantee schemes (94/19/EC). This report was adopted by the Commission on 22 December 1999 and will shortly be sent to the Council and the Parliament.
Directive 94/19/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (2) stipulates that from 1 January 2000 the minimum level of deposit guarantee is € 20 000 within the Community. According to national laws, deposit guarantees are in the range of € 20 000 to € 25 000 in most Member States. Only three Member States have higher national guarantee levels (Denmark, France and Italy).
The Commission report offers information on deposit guarantee levels in all Member States and Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. In addition, the report states the scope of the guarantee, offers reference to the different national laws establishing the deposit guarantee schemes and lists the institutes issuing the guarantee.
(1) Commission report on the application of the export-prohibition clause, Art 4(1) of the Directive on deposit guarantee schemes (94/19/EC), COM(1999) 722 final. (2) OJ L 135, 31.5.1994.
(2000/C 280 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/99 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission
(11 January 2000)
Subject: Commercial communications rules in Italy
I believe the Italian Government’s requirements for the advertising of NRT patches (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) exceed those in other Member States. As a consequence, advertisements for NRT patches made C 280 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
for pan-European distribution and which aim to communicate smoking-cessation methods to smokers who wish to quit have to be re-made so as to meet Italian rules. However, advertisements that are distributed in Italy via satellite or cable and which originate from Member States other than Italy do not have to meet the same requirements. Consequently, advertisements in Italy for NRT patches (which promote public health) are restricted compared with advertisements for the same products in other Member States. This hinders the free flow of information to smokers in Italy about the health benefits of using NRT patches to stop smoking.
Does the Commission consider that the Italian advertising rules conflict with the objective they are seeking to attain the protection of public health? If so, will the Commission consider initiating infringement proceedings against Italy in respect of those rules?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(11 February 2000)
Products that help people dependent on nicotine break their addiction are medicinal products. When it comes to classifying such products for the purposes of prescriptions and possible advertising to the general public, however, Member States have adopted different approaches. In some Member States, such products are available without a prescription while in others they are not. However, because they seek to improve public health by breaking nicotine addiction, such products have been granted a derogation where advertising is concerned, as medicinal products that are available only on prescription cannot usually be advertised to the general public. Advertising to the general public has therefore been authorised in most Member States.
Council Directive 92/28/EC of 31 March 1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use (1) provides for the advertising of medicinal products to the general public and harmonises requirements. Article 4b) of this Directive specifies that the following minimum information must be included: the name of the medicinal product, the information necessary for correct use of the product and an express, legible invitation to read carefully the instructions on the package leaflet or on the outer packaging.
In order to protect public health, advertising medicinal products to the general public is very strictly regulated in all Member States. It is, of course, perfectly possible that advertisements in the different Member States comply with the regulations but at the same time vary as to content and length.
The Commission does not have the information necessary to verify whether Italian regulations on the advertisements in question conflict with the objectives of protecting public health and the free flow of information, and will therefore contact the Italian authorities for additional information.
(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.
(2000/C 280 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2580/99
by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Community programme ECIP
The European programme ECIP has been enormously successful, with over 3 billion euro having been distributed by the Commission for the cofinancing of actions provided for by Facilities 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Following the internal reorganisation of the Commission, the procedures for selecting and evaluating projects submitted have slowed down considerably, which a few months ago led to payments being suspended, despite the availability of funds, for projects already approved by the Commission. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/77
Furthermore, the imminent expiry of the Council Regulation and the overall reorganisation of the investment aid programmes for third countries are likely to result in further delays for the beneficiaries who, moreover, have not been told when the procedures are likely to be concluded.
In view of the above, can the Commission say: 1. Whether it has informed citizens of the decision to suspend payments, the reasons behind the suspension and the measures it intends to take to streamline procedures; 2. Whether it intends to provide for the release of financing for projects submitted and/or approved in the course of 1999;
3. What guarantees does it intend to give the beneficiaries of the projects that have already been lodged (and which are awaiting evaluation) and those that have already been selected, regarding the speedy resolution of the above problems; 4. Whether the ECIP programme will be renewed or replaced by a other programme; 5. Whether any transitional measures are planned in order to ensure continuity in the various procedural phases?
(2000/C 280 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2599/99 by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(11 January 2000)
Subject: ECIP
The ECIP (European Communities Investment Partners) financial instrument has received a very positive response from all concerned in recent years, with more than 2 200 actions being approved and funds totalling over EUR 250 million being made available.
But the current programme set up under Council Regulation 213/96 of 29 January 1996 (1) will expire at the end of this year.
Can the Commission state the official position if there is one on the extension of this financial instrument?
If the Commission has not yet taken a decision concerning the future of ECIP, can it explain the reasons for the delay?
(1) OJ L 28, 6.2.1996, p. 2.
Joint answer to Written Questions P-2580/99 and E-2599/99 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(24 January 2000)
In recent years, a backlog of outstanding files has accumulated under the European Community Investment Partners (ECIP) programme. For this reason it was decided in early 1999 that the Commission would prioritise the use of its limited resources towards the closure of the existing contractual files, making outstanding payments, and the recovery of unused and reimbursable ECIP funds.
The Commission has recently decided to propose to the Council and the Parliament that the ECIP Regulation should continue for a transitional period of one year to 31 December 2000 to allow for operational follow-up of actions already financed and amendments to contracts already signed, and for technical assistance to ensure the completion and closure of ongoing actions. New projects will not be financed after 31 December 1999 and any financing requests which were not the subject of formal Commission approval before that date will be returned to the applicants.
In 2000, an independent evaluation of ECIP will be completed which will allow the Commission to define a more co-ordinated strategy for the various instruments intended to promote investment in developing countries. C 280 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2581/99 by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Commission
(16 December 1999)
Subject: Disciplinary inquiries concerning Community officials since 1 January 1998
With reference to Title VI and Annex IX of the Staff Regulations, can the Commission say how many disciplinary procedures have been initiated against officials of the European institutions since 1 January 1998 and specify, for each of them:
the grade, responsibilities and duties of the official concerned;
the type of charges brought;
whether provisional measures were taken, and if so, what kind;
if the charges were well-founded, what sanctions were adopted;
if the official turned out to be innocent, whether the legal fees were paid in accordance with Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and, if so, how much they were?
Can the Commission also say how many requests have been submitted in accordance with Article 89, how many received a positive response and, in each case, what the penalty was and what the official’s grade, responsibilities and duties were at the time the charges were brought?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(3 February 2000)
The Commission is forwarding directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament the details of the disciplinary proceedings for which a disciplinary measure has been adopted by the appointing authority for the period January 1998 to November 1999 included.
Concerning the temporary measures taken against officials involved in disciplinary proceedings, the Staff Regulations provide for the possible suspension of an official in cases where allegations of serious misconduct have been made. Since January 1998, four officials have been suspended. On 30 November 1999, only one official remained suspended.
The Disciplinary Board has not been consulted in 11 of these disciplinary proceedings.
Legal fees reimbursed in 1998 and in 1999 by the Commission in relation with disciplinary proceedings (Article 10 Annex IX of the Statute) were nil in 1998 and totalled € 141 342 in 1999.
For the period January 1998-November 1999, one official submitted a request for deletion from his personal file of all reference to a disciplinary measure (relegation in step) as foreseen by Article 89 of the Staff Regulations. The request was accepted by the Appointing Authority.
(2000/C 280 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2593/99 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council
(3 January 2000)
Subject: Code of Conduct on arms sales
Operative Provision 4 of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports states that ‘Member States will keep … consultations [under the code] confidential’. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/79
The British Government interprets this as including the results of such consultations (Official Report, 25 October 1999, column 738).
Does the Council as a whole agree, or do individual Member States have different practices as concerns the openness of the results of these consultations? If so, what are they?
Does a list exist of what arms were exported by a second Member State after the first had declined an export licence?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
It is for Member States to decide how to interpret the confidentiality provisions of the Code of Conduct, bearing in mind that, in case of refusal, notifications communicated under the Code must remain confidential and that the fundamentally bilateral nature of the consultation process must be preserved.
It is not for the Council to comment on Member States’ practices in this area.
(2000/C 280 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2596/99
by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(11 January 2000)
Subject: Authors of Corpus Juris
Corpus Juris was a ‘Green Paper’ which did not, ostensibly, reflect the official view of the Commission.
Do any of the document’s authors hold official positions in the European Communities?
Do any have an influence on policy development?
Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
(7 February 2000)
The Corpus juris (1) is neither a green paper nor indeed a Commission document. However, it was drawn up at Parliament’s request under the aegis of the Commission. The follow-up report on the Corpus Juris of September 1999 has been informally transmitted to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control (2).
Drawing up the Corpus juris was entrusted to a committee of eight independent experts, none of whom were performing official duties within the Communities at the time.
On the basis of the ideas formulated in the Corpus juris and the follow-up report, the Commission intends, as does Parliament itself, to push forward the institutions’ deliberations on the institutional arrangements which might be proposed, including to the Intergovernmental Conference.
(1) Corpus Juris introducing penal provisions for the purpose of the financial interests of the European Union (Ed. Economica 1997). (2) ‘Nécessité, légitimité et faisabilité de Corpus juris’. C 280 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2605/99 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(22 December 1999)
Subject: Structural Funds 2000-2005/7 Objective 1, Merseyside
With the approval of the British Government a bid for the next Merseyside Objective 1 programme has been submitted to the Commission which includes a financial table indicating that the programme will be supported by equal contributions from EU grants and matching public funding.
1. Is it the Commission’s understanding that, by giving its approval to the bid, the British Government has indicated that it intends to ensure that matching funding from within Britain is provided on at least a pound for pound basis with the European Union?
2. What sanctions would be open to the Commission were it to become evident that the British Government did not intend to provide matching funding on this basis?
3. Have such sanctions been applied to any Member State in past years?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(20 January 2000)
1. The financial schedule in the draft single programming document (SPD) for the region of Merseyside, as submitted by the United Kingdom authorities for the period 2000-2006, cites a total volume of EUR 3 297,9 million broken down as follows:
Share In million euro (%) EU Structural Funds 1 333,3 40 UK public contribution 1 333,3 40 Private-sector contribution 631,3 20
If this schedule remains unchanged in the final version of the SPD, the UK Government will be committing itself to financing the public-sector part of the plan on a pound-for-pound basis with the Community’s Structural Funds.
2. The Community contribution will depend directly on the expenditure declared by the UK authorities. If the financial commitment originally made is not forthcoming, an automatic penalty is built in since the Community contribution is based on this declared expenditure in accordance with the relative shares laid down in the financial schedule.
3. This is the same mechanism as applies to all other Member States.
(2000/C 280 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2612/99 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: More stringent intervention criteria for cereals
The moisture content is to be reduced once again from 15 % to 14,5 %. For decades the limit value was 16 %. In our maritime coastal climate with permanently high air humidity, under normal weather conditions the 16 % limit is possible only on a few days in Summer in the harvesting period. A glance at the harvesting conditions in previous years shows that under these conditions cereals could only have been sold in exceptional Summers. In the last seven years it would only have been possible to market the harvested crop on three occasions without artificial drying. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/81
What stage has the procedure reached?
What are the specific reasons prompting the Commission to tighten up the intervention criteria?
Is the Commission aware that in climatically unfavourable regions coastal areas, for example the intervention criteria can only be satisfied at considerable technical cost, and hence with significantly higher production costs?
Is the Commission aware that if the criteria are made more stringent farmers in the regions described will have to suffer permanent disadvantages and losses of income, even though their product is in no way inferior?
Is the Commission planning a regionally graduated approach or a hardship scheme to compensate for climatic disadvantages?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(7 February 2000)
The Commission’s purpose in launching a debate on the minimum quality of cereals offered for intervention was to bring cereal stocks more into line with (particularly export) demand. Discussion started in October 1999 and is currently continuing.
It should be borne in mind that the moisture content limit (currently 14,5 %) is set with a view to ensuring satisfactory intervention storage over a relatively long period. Dispensations up to 15 % have been granted during the last few marketing years.
The open domestic and export markets generally require lower moisture content, so that toxins do not build up and jeopardise quality.
The market accepts higher moisture content only for immediate use, or at a discount to offset the cost of drying. There are no grounds for proceeding differently with regard to intervention, which it must be remembered is not in itself a market but just a publicly-funded intermediate stage.
Regardless of region or harvest weather conditions, producers can sell their cereals provided that they satisfy the market’s quality criteria if need be by drying to reduce moisture content. Climatic risk is inherent in all forms of crop production and has to be taken into account.
(2000/C 280 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2613/99
by Horst Schnellhardt (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Pharmaceuticals for veterinary medicine
In the legislative procedure for the adoption of a European Parliament and Council regulation on pharmaceuticals for rare illnesses, the text now available represents a satisfactory result for all parties concerned. As far as human medicine is concerned, the regulation creates a framework which will considerably facilitate the fight against rare diseases. The EU has closed a gap with the USA and Japan which were able to adopt similar legislation at a much earlier date.
In my opinion, however, similar conditions need to be created in other areas of pharmaceutical science; in particular in veterinary medicine. A number of veterinary pharmaceutical products have, I believe, C 280 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
disappeared from the market in recent years. As a result, specific preventive or therapeutic use is now possible only under certain conditions. This situation has arisen for purely economic reasons. In my opinion, the development of the veterinary pharmaceutical market in Europe is critical and it can be compared with the situation of orphan drugs in human medicine.
1. Does the Commission share this assessment of the veterinary pharmaceutical market?
2. Does the Commission intend to take any legislative initiative? What action may be expected?
3. What are the Commission’s reasons for not taking any legislative initiatives?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(22 February 2000)
The Commission recognizes that there are certain similarities between the problems of availability of medicines in both human and veterinary markets and in many ways the lack of availability of veterinary medicines to treat ‘minor species’ mirrors the availability of human medicines to treat patients with ‘rare diseases’. In both these parts of the markets, research, development and marketing of the necessary medicinal products is hampered by the absence of potential profits and hence by the unwillingness of the pharmaceutical industry to invest.
In the particular case of veterinary medicines, the problem is aggravated by the existence of different target animal species for which additional scientific data must be generated. Additionally, in the case of food producing animals, the evaluation of residue data requires significant supplementary investment from industry. Currently no incentives are available.
The Commission is currently working on a proposal to amend Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (1) and Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (2), in order to solve the problem of the existing lack of veterinary medicines for minor species and for certain indications (minor uses). This proposal will be sent as soon as possible to the Council and the Parliament.
Additional legislation regarding the particular case of horses foresees an appropriate mechanism for the separation of equidae intended for slaughter for human consumption which are subject to the medication rules for food producing animals, and those equidae which are specifically marked either to definitively exclude them from the food chain or to allow their slaughter under the condition that any such treatment is recorded in the special section of a ‘horse passport’ and that a general withdrawal period of six months is observed.
Finally, in the context of a general evaluation of the veterinary medicines approval system, the Commission has recently contracted a third party to perform the evaluation of the entire system of authorisation and supervision of medicinal products in the Community. Based on this evaluation, a proposal for a new system will be submitted to the Council and Parliament in 2001.
(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990. (2) OJ L 317, 6.11.1981. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/83
(2000/C 280 E/085) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2616/99 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Agri-environment expenditure
What percentage of common agricultural policy expenditure is devoted to agri-environment schemes (intended to ensure that agricultural activities are compatible with the maintenance of landscapes, species and habitats) in each of the 15 Member States?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(7 February 2000)
One of the key objectives of the common agricultural policy (CAP) lies in safeguarding and improving the environment. While this role had already been created prior to the 1999 reform, it has become even more crucial under Agenda 2000. By way of example, the measures aimed at supporting farmers in less-favoured areas, and the provisions allowing direct aid to be granted to farmers subject to certain environmental constraints, play an important role where the environment is concerned. However, the budgetary cost of such measures is not entered as environmental expenditure since the environment is but one of the targets of measures of this type. As regards exclusively environmental measures provided for by specific legislation and financed solely by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), expenditure for the 1999 financial year totalled € 1 951 million. This represents 4,93 % of the total expenditure of € 39 524 million for the financial year, i.e. an increase of more than one quarter on the average for 1996-1999. In view of the foregoing, however, it would be wrong to conclude that this percentage of CAP expenditure alone contributes towards safeguarding and improving the environment.
The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that EAGGF funding for agri-environment measures is matched by Member State co-funding on a one-for-one basis in non-Objective 1 areas and at a rate of 75 % Community funding and 25 % Member State funding in Objective 1 areas. Total expenditure on agri-environment schemes is, therefore, higher than the EAGGF expenditure indicated below.
As regards the breakdown of expenditure on exclusively environmental measures in each Member State, the average for the financial years from 1996 to 1999 is as follows:
(million euro)
EAGGF Environment/EAGGF Member State Environment Guarantee expenditure (%) BE 992,7 2,07 0,21 DK 1 250 7,67 0,61 DE 5 775 275,3 4,76 GR 2 664 6,17 0,23 ES 4 789 50,2 1,05 FR 9 260 114,7 1,24 IRL 1 761,5 99,25 5,63 IT 4 507,5 275,65 6,11 LU 20,7 3,27 15,78 NL 1 491,1 11,2 0,75 AT 938 336,6 35,89 PT 643,7 57,2 8,89 FI 587,7 166,6 28,34 SE 669,5 86,02 12,84 UK 4 002,7 41,9 1,04 Total 39 450,8 1 534,2 3,88 C 280 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2618/99 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Fundamental Rights
1. According to Article 295 of the Treaty (ex Art. 222 CE), property rights are, on the basis of subsidiarity, to be dealt with by the Member States. Nevertheless, Article 6(1) of the Treaty of Rome provides some necessary guarantees in relation to human rights and thus to the recognition of property rights.
Various European regulations, when implemented, obviously have an impact on property rights. Among them, are the Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Nitrates Directive. Some regulations under preparation risk having similar negative impacts on landowning (environmental liability, product liability, etc.).
How does the Commission intend to ensure a sufficient level of protection of property rights in its regulatory work, bearing in mind that the protection of fundamental rights does include property rights?
2. The Cologne Council launched the work on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to the European Convention on Human Rights, property rights are one of the fundamental rights.
Will the Commission include property rights in the Charter?
How will the Charter be applicable in practical terms when finalised?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(14 February 2000)
1. The right to property is a basic right guaranteed by Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and by constitutional traditions common to the Member States.
However, it is not an absolute right. Restrictions on it could go as far as expropriation on the basis of public utility. Article 1 of the abovementioned Additional Protocol lays down that ‘every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.’
Although, under Article 295 (former Article 222) of the EC Treaty, the Treaty does not in any way prejudge the system of ownership in the Member States, Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union requires the Union to respect the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and by the constitutional traditions common to the Member States as general principles of Community law.
The Commission takes account of the principle of proportionality in all its proposals so that the right to property is affected only within the indispensable limits imposed by the general interest.
2. Given that the Charter on Fundamental Rights is being drafted and that many questions relating to it are still outstanding, the Commission cannot make any forecast as to its content or the practical arrangements to apply it. These will depend on its legal nature and its content. In any case, given the importance of rights to property, it is obvious that the charter cannot overlook them. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/85
(2000/C 280 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2620/99 by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Approval system for veterinary medicines
The Commission is certainly aware that there is a current lack of availability of veterinary medicines across the EU.
As I understand it, there are two principal reasons for this:
1. the inability of the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) to establish maximum residue limits for a number of active substances used in medicinal products, and
2. the failure of the sponsoring companies to provide sufficient safety and residue data to enable the Committee to complete its work.
Without the availability of such veterinary medicines, farmers are faced with two choices B either that they accept the unnecessary and considerable economic burden imposed on them by their ailing livestock, something they should not have to and/or may not be able to do, or that they give their livestock untested remedies which would have an incalculable effect on the health and safety of both animals and humans.
An efficient veterinary medicines approval system should determine the safety of new medicines. Furthermore, the same level of transparency in residue monitoring programmes must be applied across all Member States. Currently the UK is the only Member State to publish the results of its approval process.
What is the Commission doing to ensure that the veterinary medicines approval system currently in place is efficient?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(10 February 2000)
The Commission is certainly aware of the problem of availability of veterinary medicinal products on the market. The current evaluation system for approval and surveillance of veterinary medicinal products is based on quality, efficacy and safety criteria under an umbrella of the protection of human and animal health and the environment. After the grant of a marketing authorisation, veterinary medicines must continue to meet safety and efficacy requirements and offer an acceptable balance between their benefits and risks during the life of the products. To fulfil these objectives, the implementation of several legal provisions and Commission initiatives contribute to an assurance that the veterinary medicines approval system is efficient.
The establishment of a surveillance system for veterinary medicinal products on the market, according to the framework foreseen in Chapter VIa (Pharmacovigilance) of Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 Sep- tember 1981, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (1), provides for the collection and evaluation of pharmacovigilance data that can be traced to the use of veterinary medicinal products thereby contributing to the appropriate use of products to satisfy clinical needs.
A surveillance system establishing measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products in accordance with Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (2), con- tributes to ensuring the safe use of medicines in food producing animals.
Mechanisms ensure that animals may be treated with off label use medicines under certain conditions in order to protect the animal and the consumer. Article 4 of Council Directive 81/851/EEC already provides that where no authorised product for a condition exists the Member States may exceptionally, in particular to avoid causing unacceptable suffering to the animal concerned, permit the administration of another C 280 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
product by a vet under specific conditions. For food-producing animals an extended withdrawal time has to be observed to ensure that food obtained from treated animals does not contain residues harmful to the consumer. In the particular case of horses, an appropriate mechanism provides for the separation of equidae intended for slaughter for human consumption which are subject to the medication rules for food producing animals, and those equidae which are specifically marked either to definitively exclude them from the food chain or to allow their slaughter under the condition that any such treatment is recorded in the special section of a ‘horse passport’, in accordance with recently adopted Community legislation and that a general withdrawal period of six months is observed.
In order to address the problems of availability of veterinary medicines, the Commission is currently working on a proposal to amend Council Regulation 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (3) and Council Directive 81/851/EEC. This will be sent at the earliest possible moment to the Council and the Parliament.
Finally, in more general terms, as regards the evaluation of the veterinary medicines approval system, the Commission has recently contracted out an audit of the entire system of authorisation and supervision of medicinal products in the Community to an independent consultant. Based on the results of this evaluation, the Commission will submit a proposal for a new system to the Council and Parliament in 2001.
(1) OJ L 317, 6.11.1981, as amended by Council Directives 90/676/EEC, OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, and 93/40/EEC, OJ L 214, 24.8.1993. (2) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996. (3) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.
(2000/C 280 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2621/99
by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Bringing the rules of the Spanish Swimming Federation allowing no more than two non-Spanish players to play in the national water polo league into line with Community law
Article 20 of the rules of the Royal Spanish Swimming Federation stipulates that ‘Clubs taking part in open competitions may obtain licences for two players whose nationality is other than Spanish …’.
Bearing in mind that the league is non-professional, does this restriction comply with Community law when applied to players who are nationals of the Member States?
Does this restriction comply with Community law if the players in question are nationals of the Member States employed under labour contracts?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(28 February 2000)
The Court of justice has, with the Bosman judgement (1), confirmed that Community law provisions on free movement are applicable to professional sports and, in particular, that Article 39 (ex Article 48) of the EC Treaty on freedom of movement of workers applies to the rules of sporting associations. Limitation of the number of players having the nationality of other Member States who may be fielded in a match is therefore contrary to Community law.
Amateurs, that is to say people who are not practising sport as an economic activity, are not covered by that judgement. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/87
However, the Commission is of the opinion that the rule of a sporting association which limits the number of amateur players having the nationality of other Member States who may be fielded in a match is also contrary to Community law, and notably to Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (2). That provision states that Community workers are to be granted the same social and tax advantages as national workers. The Court has ruled on several occasions that the provision applies to leisure activities (3) and it is indisputable that practising sport as an amateur is a leisure activity.
Whether or not the sport practised by amateurs is an economic activity has to be judged on the basis of the characteristics of the activity.
(1) Case C-415/93, [ECR] 1995, I-4921. (2) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968. (3) Case C-334/94 [ECR] 1996, I-1307.
(2000/C 280 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2624/99 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: New legislation regarding foreigners in Romania
The Defence Committee of the Chamber of Deputies in the Romanian Parliament has recently approved a bill covering regulations for foreigners in Romania, a bill that was passed in the Romanian Senate on 10 September 1998. According to this bill, foreign citizens living in Romania would no longer be allowed to finance or found political parties, organisations or political groups on Romanian soil, or take part in demonstrations regarding the political life of the country.
In addition, every natural or legal person hosting foreigners for over five days should notify local police authorities. Lastly, according to this bill, a residence permit may be issued only to those residents holding medical insurance.
Does not the Commission believe that if this legislation, already passed by the Senate, should be adopted in its present format by the Parliament in Bucharest, Romania would find itself in clear breach of its commitments as a country applying for accession to the EU? What initiatives has the Commission already taken or does it intend to take to dissuade the relevant Romanian authorities, beginning with the Parliament, from proceeding to adopt this legislation in its current format?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(22 February 2000)
The draft law regarding the regime of aliens in Romania, which was adopted by the Senate on 10 September 1998, has not yet been adopted by the Chamber of Deputies. The present legislation (Law No 25/1969 on the regime of aliens) is outdated and the Commission in its latest regular report on Romania’s progress towards accession adopted on 13 October 1999 (1) and the accession partnership which the Council adopted on 6 December 1999 (2) stressed the need to replace this law with modern legislation.
The Honourable Member refers to provisions in the draft law containing restrictions on the political activity of aliens residing in Romania. Article 16 of the European Convention on human rights, which has been ratified by Romania, permits the contracting parties to impose such restrictions.
The office of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) in Romania has commented on the proposed restrictions and has pointed out that according to the case law of the European Court of human rights such restrictions must be proportionate. A restriction must not only pursue a legitimate aim, but there must also be a reasonable proportionality between the means employed and that legitimate aim which is sought to be realised. However, UNHCR has not argued that the provisions which are now in question are disproportionate. C 280 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
As a member of the Union following accession, Romania will have to respect the rights ensuing from the citizenship of the Union. According to Article 19 of the EC Treaty every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national has the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides. Citizenship of the Union also entitles to vote and to stand as a candidate in the country of residence in elections to the European Parliament. To stand as a candidate in elections presupposes membership of a political party and consequently the possibility to carry out political activities and to contribute to financing a party (through membership fees in the first place). Thus the restrictions in question would be, upon accession, contrary to Article 19. Although there is at present no formal obligation for Romania not to adopt legislation containing such political restrictions for aliens, it is evident that Romania as a candidate country should endeavour to ensure that its legislation is gradually made compatible with that of the Community.
The Honourable Member has also raised concern at two provisions in the draft legislation, i.e. the obligation for a person who receives a foreigner for more than five days to inform the authorities, and the rule which makes the granting of a residence permit conditional upon the presentation of a medical insurance. According to the Europe agreement the contracting parties have the right to apply national legislation concerning such issues relating to the entry and stay of foreigners. However, after accession, Romania will be obliged to participate in the Schengen co-operation and should therefore successively make its future legislation, i.e. the obligation to inform the authorities on the entry of foreigners, in line also with the Schengen agreement.
The Commission maintains a continuous dialogue with the Romanian authorities on approximation of its legislation with a view to accession to the Community and will not fail to make the Romanian authorities aware of the need to progressively align with the acquis the provisions to which the Honourable Member has referred.
(1) COM(99) 510 final. (2) OJ L 335, 28.12.1999.
(2000/C 280 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2630/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Granting of protected designation of origin to the traditional balsamic vinegars of Modena and Reggio
The regulatory committee has refused to grant protected designation of origin to the traditional balsamic vinegars of Reggio and Modena.
According to the farmers and producer’s associations that have taken an interest in the matter, the protection and exploitation of quality agricultural and food products are being undermined by exclusively commercial interests and this, in their view, is why the committee has refused to grant protected designation of origin to the above product.
These vinegars, produced in the provinces of Modena and Reggio, in Emilia-Romagna, date back to the Renaissance and the Middle Ages. The balsamic vinegar of Modena has been famous since 1508, and the Reggio vinegar since the 12th century.
For centuries they have been aged for over twelve years in small barrels made of the finest wood. On the European market and elsewhere producers of the traditional balsamic vinegars of Modena and Reggio have to continually guard against imitations.
Italian government experts in agriculture and gastronomy unanimously believe that these vinegars are a typical and unique product and should not be confused with mass-produced vinegars.
Given the above, does the Commission not consider that the traditional balsamic vinegars of Reggio and Modena meet all the necessary requirements for being granted a protected designation of origin? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/89
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(28 January 2000)
The Commission considers that the requests to register ‘aceto balsamico tradizional di Modena’ and ‘aceto balsamico tradizional di Reggio Emilia’ as products with a protected designation of origin do indeed meet the conditions laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1).
Accordingly, it presented a draft Regulation on awarding these products ‘protected designation of origin’ status to the regulatory committee on geographical indications and designations of origin. The vote in this committee resulted in no opinion being delivered.
In such circumstances, Article 15 of the Regulation requires the Commission to submit to the Council, without delay, a proposal on the measures to be taken. The Council votes on this proposal by qualified majority. If, however, it fails to produce a ruling within three months of the matter being referred to it, the proposed measures are adopted by the Commission.
(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
(2000/C 280 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2631/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Granting of protected designation of origin to the cake known as ‘Spongata tipica emiliana’, produced in the provinces of Reggio Emilia and Parma
A traditional cake known as Spongata, made of honey, walnuts, flour and raisins, has been produced in the provinces of Reggio Emilia and Parma since Roman times. In the Middle Ages spices were added to the recipe. Proof of the cake’s popularity can be found in a letter dating back to 1557 which said that, owing to a serious famine, production of the cake had been prohibited in Reggio Emilia that year.
This century, several producers of traditional Spongata cakes from Emilia-Romagna have won prizes in national and international competitions for the distinctive features and quality of their product.
This typical cake from Emilia-Romagna is appreciated, sold and eaten not only in Emilia-Romagna itself but also in other Italian regions and, recently, even abroad.
Even now the cake is produced in the provinces of Reggio Emilia and Parma by small, sometimes family- run firms, where it is made according to the ancient recipes and age-old tradition.
In the light of the above, does the Commission not believe that the traditional Spongata cake from Reggio and Parma should be protected in that it is a typical regional cake which has been made for centuries using traditional recipes and that it consequently meets all the requirements for being granted a protected designation of origin?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(31 January 2000)
The Commission is not in a position to express a detailed opinion on the product mentioned by the Honourable Member without more precise information, in particular that provided for in the specification within the meaning of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and food- stuffs (1). C 280 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Those concerned need to apply to the Italian Ministry for Agricultural Policy for registration of a designation of origin or geographical indication within the meaning of the above-mentioned Regulation. The procedure is that if the Ministry considers that the application is justified and contains the necessary information, it forwards the complete file to the Commission for registration at Community level.
The Commission would point out that for the evaluation of certain products which are clearly distinguishable from other similar products, the regulation applicable is Regulation (EC) No 2082/92 on certificates of specific character, which refers to a specific and traditional method of production. The Commission will give due consideration to any application from a national authority for the registration of a designation of origin or certificate of specific character for the product in question
(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
(2000/C 280 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2632/99
by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Millennium-compliance of the Albanian aviation sector
Considerable thought has been given to the question of the millennium, which is a cause of concern to many. Now that there are fewer than thirty days to go, it appears that not all of Europe can make a safe transition to the new century.
Albania has still not submitted a report to the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) on the millennium compliance of airports in Albania. Clearly, not only the ICAO but the EU, too, has an interest in clear information on whether its neighbour is millennium-compliant.
On 24 November 1999 the Commission referred to negotiations with Albania and the political, institutional and economic problems involved.
1. Is the Commission aware of the possible risks to the Union from this situation in Albania with regard to the millennium question and aviation? Which of these risks does the Commission regard as most important?
2. How does the Commission envisage being able to limit the risks to EU citizens of an aviation system in the immediate vicinity of the European Union which is not millennium-compliant?
3. What role did the millennium question play in the Commission’s conclusion (24 November 1999) that at present it is not possible to formulate an official proposal for negotiating guidelines on an agreement with Albania on stability and accession?
4. What action will the Commission take to obtain clarity on whether the Albanian aviation sector is millennium-compliant?
5. In the absence of any clarity on this from the Albanian side, is the Commission prepared to issue a warning not to fly to Albania or use Albanian airlines at the end of the year?
6. Given the special nature of these questions, can the Commission reply before 31 December 1999? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/91
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(2 February 2000)
The purpose of the recent Commission report (1) mentioned by the Honourable Member was to assess the feasibility of negotiating a stablisation and association agreement with Albania. It identified important political, institutional and economic requirements for a successful participation of Albania in such perspective. It did not address the specific issue of the millenium bug in relation to Albania.
The Commission did not receive detailed information from the Albanian authorities on their preparedness for the millennium bug. However, landing and take-off at Tirana (Rinas) airport takes place visually and the lighting system at night does not operate by computer. At the current stage, there are only very few flights from Community airports to Tirana and during night hours the airport is normally closed. Check-in systems are compliant given that they are extensions of systems in Western Europe, Swissair being its main user. The air space is controlled by a system of SITA (Société international de télécommunications aérienne) and according to Eurocontrol and other relevant sources it is considered that there is no major risk.
(1) COM(99) 651 final.
(2000/C 280 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2634/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(22 December 1999)
Subject: Compensation of EU citizens in the case of road accidents in Switzerland
Loopholes in Swiss legislation allow insurance companies to delay paying compensation in respect of third party liability. This source of legal uncertainty also affects nationals of EU countries who are the victims of road accidents in Switzerland. They find themselves involved in legal proceedings without any prospect of obtaining fair compensation within a reasonable period of time.
The forthcoming ratification of the transport agreement between Switzerland and the EU in the course of 2000 should be taken as an opportunity to resolve this legal problem as soon as possible. EU citizens in Switzerland are entitled to the same protection as Swiss nationals enjoy in the fifteen Member States of the EU. It is also worth noting that former Commission President Santer was informed of this problem in writing on 12 March 1998 and 27 July 1998 (letters from Dr Eric Suy, president of VTB-VAB and Belgium’s Deputy Prime Minister, Elio de Rupo).
1. What action has the Commission taken to remedy the loopholes in Swiss legislation, which result in a lack of legal certainty in the case of road accidents in Switzerland?
2. Will the Commission take advantage of the ratification procedure for the transport agreement between Switzerland and the EU to demand from the Swiss Government a rapid, fair and reasonable solution to this legal problem? If not, why not?
3. What further steps will the Commission take to ensure that Swiss Government finds a fair and reasonable solution to this legal problem as soon as possible?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(21 January 2000)
The Commission is aware of a number of cases in which Community nationals have encountered difficulties in their dealings with Swiss insurance companies, following accidents in Switzerland. C 280 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
These are cases governed by Swiss civil law and, as far as traffic accidents are concerned, by the green card agreement, which also falls under civil law. The Commission has no competences in this respect, and has no powers to deal with claims following from accidents in third countries, against insurance companies in these countries.
These questions were not covered by the mandate for the negotiation of the seven sectoral agreements, and therefore it was not possible to include them in the negotiations. The result of the negotiations has been proposed by the Commission to the Council (1), and the agreements have been signed on 21 June 1999 in Luxembourg. It is now for the Parliament, the Member States and the Council to ratify the agreements on the basis of their own evaluation.
The Commission has taken up this issue in a more general context with the Swiss authorities. It will again raise the issue at the next meeting of the joint committee of the insurance agreement, which will be held in spring 2000, even if strictly speaking this matter falls beyond the scope of this agreement.
(1) COM(99) 229 final.
(2000/C 280 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2640/99 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE), Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) and Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Legal arrangements for the awarding of contracts and the construction quality of projects in Greece
Significant problems have arisen due to the inadequacy, lack of transparency and distortions in the institutional framework for the awarding of contracts and programmes, and because of the slipshod approach and inadequacy of the Greek inspection and supervisory authorities concerning the proper monitoring of Community projects under construction. In many instances the Commission has received complaints concerning the awarding of contracts, resulting in delays in the completion of contracts and possibly the loss of the corresponding Community appropriations.
Given that the planned third Community support framework for Greece (2000-2006) provides for nine trillion drachmas for the implementation of various infrastructure projects and development programmes and given that further construction projects are envisaged with a view to the 2004 Olympic Games:
1. What is the situation in Greece as regards the incorporation into national law and the application of the Community rules on the legal arrangements for agreements and the allocation of contracts and programmes?
2. What assessment has been made of their application and what measures will the Commission take in the event of breach of Community rules or distortion of the operating conditions of the market in question?
3. In which Community projects has substandard work been identified by the special supervisory council (ESPEL) in Greece and in which of these have fines and sanctions been imposed on those responsible?
4. What will be done to ensure transparency, the credibility of the system for awarding and completing contracts and the elimination of substandard work in Greece, in order to bring about shorter delays, a higher utilisation rate of Community appropriations and better quality in the construction of projects?
Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(1 March 2000)
The Commission would like to inform the honourable Members that Greece has already transposed a number of directives on public contracts, namely Council Directives 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (1), 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (1), 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (2), and 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/93
89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (3). The national provisions for transposition do not seem to indicate any special problems of compatibility with Community rules. However, it must be acknowledged that there are still some significant delays with regard to the transposition of directives on public contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors: Council Directives 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (1) and 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (4), together with Council Directive 97/52/EC (5) of 13 October 1997 amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, public supply contracts and public works contracts respectively, in order to take account of the Council’s approval of the international agreement on government procurement under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Because of the Greek authorities’ failure to communicate the national texts transposing these directives, the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings and decided to bring some of these matters before the Court of Justice.
The Commission would also like to inform the honourable Members that it ensures that the procedures for awarding public contracts are properly applied in every Member State. In this regard, the Commission cooperates above all with the national authorities in the framework of its ‘package meetings’ in order to promote awareness of Community rules in this area and to ensure their proper application. At the same time, it also investigates complaints and can initiate infringement proceedings, as laid down in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty in the event of national authorities’ acting in breach of Community rules.
As for improving the overall production system for public works with the aim of making more efficient use of Community funds, the Commission would like to point out that the Community Support Framework II provides for the introduction of a joint steering committee that has proposed a number of measures, some of which were adopted some time ago. The Commission expects this reform to be speeded up and the necessary measures taken to ensure effective compliance by the authorities undertaking the works.
Lastly, with regard to the quality of the works that have been jointly funded and the activities of the special supervisory council (ESPEL), the honourable Members are referred to the answers given to written questions E-1912/99 by Mr Hadzidakis (6) and E-2017/99 by Mr Papayannakis (7).
(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993. (2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. (3) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989. (4) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992. (5) OJ L 328, 28.11.1997. (6) See page 2. (7) See page 5.
(2000/C 280 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2648/99
by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Pollution by electromagnetic waves
On 11 June 1998 the proposal for a Council recommendation ‘on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields 0 Hz to 300GHz’ (COM(98) 268 final) was published.
In Italy, and especially in Rome, the problem of pollution from electromagnetic waves is at present a highly contentious issue, because it has been taken up by residents and consumer and environmental groups. C 280 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
The municipality of Rome has also recently published an opinion on the problem (No 5187, 29 December 1998), which is, however, completely inadequate because of the limited guarantees it suggests for safeguarding public health.
In the light of the answer to the previous question on this subject of 11 July 1997 (E-2630/97) (1)itis clear that a measure is needed for accurately monitoring pollution by electromagnetic waves, but at present monitoring of this kind is, in practice, impossible because the responsible local health administra- tions do not possess the necessary technical equipment.
In the light of the above:
1. Does the Commission believe that ETACS, DCS and DECT mobile telephone antennas should be included in the required regulations?
2. Should an additional limit not be laid down, within the limits for exposure to electromagnetic waves, for cases where there is proximity to a population at special risk, such as those with medical prostheses like pacemakers etc. (for instance, near hospitals) and especially near schools?
3. Should the electromagnetic pollution report not take into account the overall values in the area and not just those relevant to the equipment to be installed?
4. Does the Commission not consider it advisable for equipment that does not fall within public health safety limits to be dismantled?
5. Does the Commission not agree that the proliferation of mobile telephone relay antennas could be restricted by using roaming between different operators?
6. What are the Commission’s general views on this matter?
(1) OJ C 102, 3.4.1998, p. 78.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(23 February 2000)
The Commission, in its proposal for a Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (1) adopted by the Council on 12 July 1999 (Recommendation 1999/519/EC) wanted to contribute as much as possible to ensuring a high level of health protection for European citizens in a sensitive area which had not previously been subject to Community law.
The text of the Recommendation does not refer to any particular equipment. All sources of non-ionising radiation are covered, including mobile telephone relay antennas. Interference with sensitive medical equipment is addressed in the context of electromagnetic compatibility and the legislation governing medical devices.
The upcoming European standards, which will ensure conformity of equipment with the reference levels and recommended basic restrictions, will open the way to measuring the environmental fields. If these measurements show that the population is exposed to values in excess of the recommended limits, technical adaptation measures will be adopted (roaming between operators, reconfiguration of the networks).
The Commission is keeping this dossier under very close scrutiny and will if necessary propose legislation if the ongoing research programmes under its aegis reveal the emergence of new health risks.
(1) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/95
(2000/C 280 E/096) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2656/99
by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(13 January 2000)
Subject: Compensation of EU citizens in the case of road accidents in Switzerland
Loopholes in Swiss legislation allow insurance companies to delay paying compensation in respect of third party liability. This source of legal uncertainty also affects EU citizens who are the victims of road accidents in Switzerland. They find themselves involved in legal proceedings without any prospect of obtaining fair compensation within a reasonable period of time.
The forthcoming ratification of the transport agreement between Switzerland and the EU in the course of 2000 should be taken as an opportunity to resolve this legal problem as soon as possible. EU citizens in Switzerland are entitled to the same protection which Swiss nationals enjoy in the fifteen Member States of the EU. It is also worth noting that former Commission President Santer was informed of this problem in writing on 12 March 1998 and 27 July 1998 (letters from Dr Eric Suy, president of VTB-VAB and Belgium’s Deputy Prime Minister, Elio de Rupo).
1. What action has the Council taken to remedy the loopholes in Swiss legislation, which result in a lack of legal certainty in the case of road accidents in Switzerland?
2. Will the Council take advantage of the ratification procedure for the transport agreement between Switzerland and the EU to demand from the Swiss Government a rapid, fair and reasonable solution to this legal problem? If not, why not?
3. What further steps will the Council take to ensure that the Swiss Government finds a fair and reasonable solution to this legal problem as soon as possible?
Reply
(16 March 2000)
In respect of the elements of the question that fall within the Council’s competence, the Council would like to state the following:
1. The Council considers that the transport agreement with Switzerland constitutes a balanced set of reciprocal rights and obligations. It is in the interest of the Union that it can enter into force as soon as possible. The said agreement does not cover insurance matters.
2. The problem of long settlement procedures concerning road accidents in third countries has been recognised by the institutions of the EU and they have been prepared to tackle the problem with the proposal for the fourth motor insurance directive aimed at creating simplified administrative and legal procedures to speed up the payment of compensation by the liability insurer of the responsible party. After the Parliament approved amendments at its Plenary Session of 15 December 1999, this proposal is entering into a conciliation procedure in the near future.
3. In particular, as regards accidents between Community residents and residents of Switzerland and improving the compensation practices of Swiss companies relating to such accidents, this could only be achieved through negotiating a bilateral agreement concerning compensation for traffic accidents between the parties concerned.
4. Notwithstanding the absence of any mandatory compensation framework, it is always possible for insurance companies to conclude voluntary agreements regarding compensation practices. C 280 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/097) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2660/99
by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Council
(22 December 1999)
Subject: Development of democracy in Belarus
Recent events in Belarus have shown that the country is still far removed from democracy. The government headed by President Lukashenko is seeking, in spite of public opposition, to enter into a federal union with Russia.
Most recently, on 17 October 1999, over 20 000 Belarussians marched against the Lukashenko regime in Minsk. This resulted in a bloody clash between riot police and demonstrators, most of whom were arrested. Representatives of Belarus also blamed the demonstration on Western states.
Lukashenko has been criticised for systematically suppressing opposition and (inter alia) the press. Last autumn at least three important Belarussian opposition leaders disappeared. To enable Belarus to redeem its position in Europe as a free state without a dictatorship, the EU should also work towards helping Belarus on the way to developing democracy and human rights.
What has the Council done, and what does it propose to do, to promote the development of democracy and respect for human rights in Belarus?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
The Council has always attached particular importance to the development of democracy and respect for human rights in Belarus. In the light of the political and constitutional situation as well as the human rights violations in Belarus, it adopted a series of restrictive measures in September 1997 (ministerial contacts to be established only through the Presidency; halt to EU and Member States’ technical assistance programs, except those in support of human rights and the democratisation process; no conclusion of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement).
To keep the door open and give Belarus an incentive to make progress in the fields of human rights and democracy, the Council has identified step-by-step benchmarks for the lifting of the 1997 restrictions. With this approach, positive steps in the fields of human rights, the media and re-registration for political parties and NGOs would be reciprocated by gradual lifting of the restrictions imposed by the Union.
Some positive measures have recently been taken by the Belarusian government such as the liberation of ex-Prime Minister Chigir and people arrested after the 17 October demonstrations, the agreement with the opposition on access to state-controlled media; the signing of the TACIS Civil Society Development Programme and the re-registration of NGOs and political parties.
But at the same time, Belarus has been backtracking on a number of points: ex-Prime Minister Chigir has been freed from provisional custody but the charges against him still stand and his trial is under way. According to unconfirmed information, a prominent political prisoner, Mr Klimov, was recently severely beaten. President Lukashenko consigned to oblivion the media agreement concluded at the preliminary negotiations conducted under OSCE auspices and Mr Sazonov, the chief negotiator of the Government in the OSCE-sponsored dialogue with the opposition, has resigned. Furthermore, the Government bypassed dialogue with the opposition on the draft election code. The lower chamber and the upper chamber of the Belarusian National Assembly adopted at the second reading the draft which is now before the President for signing. The code is badly drafted and contains a number of inconsistencies. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/97
Two front-rank political personalities have disappeared over the last few months: Mr Zakharenko (former Minister for Internal Affairs) disappeared in May 1999 and Mr Gonchar (Vice-Chairman of the 13th Supreme Soviet) in September 1999; we have no information concerning their whereabouts. The case of a third major personality, Mrs Vinnikova (former Chairwoman of the Belarusian Central Bank) has been solved. She joined her son in the United Kingdom at the end of 1999.
In the light of these developments the Council is not in a position to lift the 1997 restrictions. The EU makes its position clear to Belarus at every appropriate occasion and presses for more democratic reforms (senior officials’ Troika mission to Minsk on 1 and 2 November, meeting between Under-Secretary of State Blomberg and Foreign Minister Latypov in Istanbul on 18 November and démarches by heads of mission whenever necessary). Moreover, the recently signed TACIS Civil Society Development Programme will contribute to improving the democratic reform process in Belarus.
The EU’s overriding aim is the holding of free and fair, internationally observed and recognised elections in 2000. The Council has taken good note of President Lukashenko’s commitment to such elections, and will hold him to his word.
To set the electoral process in motion, a dialogue between the Government and the opposition is indispensable. The EU fully supports the efforts of the OSCE as the only organisation able to kick-start this dialogue.
(2000/C 280 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2665/99 by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Restructuring of ABB Alstom Power
The management of the ABB Alstom Power group, which was formed in a merger on 30 June 1999, has announced a restructuring programme. In some countries where the undertaking operates job cuts have already been announced.
Have this group and/or its pre-merger constituent groups received any EU aid?
If so, could the Commission give details of the amount and the conditions under which it was granted? Was such aid conditional on job creation? Is the Commission prepared to ask for it to be repaid?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(10 February 2000)
The Commission is making the necessary inquiries in the various Member States. It will make the results of its investigation known as soon as possible.
(2000/C 280 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2667/99 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council
(13 January 2000)
Subject: Prospects of Azerbaijan joining the Council of Europe and development of EU/Azerbaijan relations
Can the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy give full details on the state of progress of Azerbaijan’s accession to the Council of Europe? More generally, can the High Representative indicate how the EU intends to develop relations with the country? C 280 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Reply
(16 March 2000)
The Council fully supports the objective of Azerbaijan to become a member of the Council of Europe. However, neither the Council nor the High Representative is involved in this accession process and is therefore not in a position to comment on it.
The High Representative will continue to assist the Council in support of developing closer relations between the European Union and Azerbaijan. The European Union has contractual relations with Azerbaijan through a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement which provides for, amongst other things, enhanced trade relations, financial cooperation, and a political dialogue.
The first meeting of the EU-Azerbaijan Cooperation Council established under this agreement took place in October 1999 and a further meeting is planned later this year.
The political dialogue provides the European Union with the opportunity to raise a number of issues of interest including human rights, regional cooperation and the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh.
(2000/C 280 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2668/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Regulations on advertisements during election campaigns
In Italy one of the great topics of debate at the moment is equal opportunities in the field of television advertising during election campaigns; in fact, for parties and individual politicians, a ban on interrupting television programmes with advertisements could be in force as early as the next local elections. According to the proposal for legislation submitted by the Italian Government, only private local television advertising slots would be granted. For national television, on the other hand, the parties would be granted self-managed slots for transmission between television programmes.
In the light of the above:
1. Can the Commission say how the other Member States deal with television advertising during election campaigns?
2. Are there any relevant EU directives?
3. What is the Commission’s assessment of the issue?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(29 February 2000)
Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (1), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 (2), includes provisions relating to advertising, sponsorship and teleshopping. However, these provisions do not govern political broadcasts or political advertising, but relate to advertising spots without distinction in terms of time. The Commission has not received any complaints concerning arrangements in the Member States similar to those described by the Honourable Member. The Commun- ity rules in force in this area do not make provision for any examination of national regulations at the draft stage, such as the proposal referred to, unless the text contains provisions relating specifically to information society services, which are subject to the prior notification obligation under Directive 98/34/EC 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/99
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (3) (as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 (4)).
(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989. (2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997. (3) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998. (4) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.
(2000/C 280 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2669/99 by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: State aid to Philipp Holzmann AG
It has been announced that the German Government is to take various measures to facilitate the restructuring of Philipp Holzmann AG, the construction group.
The Commission’s recent notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees clarifies the circumstances in which State guarantees fall under the heading of State aid and how far they are compatible with Article 87 of the EC Treaty.
The provisions announced, loans amounting to DEM 150 million and guarantees of a further DEM 100 million, constitute State aid (specifically, aid for rescuing and restructuring, as defined in the Community guidelines published in OJ C 368, 23.12.1994) falling within the scope of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty.
In view of the above, does the Commission not consider that these measures taken by the German Government constitute a serious distortion of competition within the Community and breach the provisions on State aid in Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty?
In the light of the statements by the Commissioner responsible for competition and the Governor of the European Central Bank on the ‘coincidence’ of measures and proposals for State interference in the markets and the euro’s weakness, does the Commission intend to take steps to reduce the number of possible exceptions to the prohibition on State aid contained in Article 87 of the EC Treaty? In particular, does the Commission not think it advisable to take action to modify, if not tighten up, the above-mentioned ‘Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty’, which are characterised by an excessively general and broad approval system?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(9 February 2000)
Whether or not the measures of the German government constitute a serious distortion of competition has to be assessed on the basis of a detailed analysis taking into account the criteria of the Guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (1). These guidelines which came into force on 9 October 1999 amended the previous guidelines from 1994 and have stricter criteria, for instance, with respect to the avoidance of undue distortions of competition and the ‘one time, last time’ principle.
After a preliminary examination of the notification the Commission found that the aid raised doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. Therefore, on 18 January 2000 the Commission initiated proceedings in order to launch an in-depth investigation of the aid measures.
(1) OJ C 288, 9.10.1999. C 280 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2670/99 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(11 January 2000)
Subject: Resignation of the Director-General of Social Affairs and Employment
We have heard that the Director-General of Social Affairs and Employment has recently resigned.
Could the Commission provide information concerning the reasons for this resignation and the impact which the resignation will have on the establishment of the Commission’s position during the preparations for the Lisbon Council meeting on employment and competitiveness in Europe?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(24 January 2000)
Allan Larsson, the Director-general of the Employment and social affairs Directorate general, has not resigned. Mr Larsson has announced his intention to leave the Commission when he completes five years in his post later this year, as he is entitled to do.
The Commission is currently preparing its contribution to the Lisbon European Council. All services are contributing in the normal way.
(2000/C 280 E/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2676/99 by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: State aid to the car industry
The Commission has indicated that state aid to the car industry will be the subject of a special investigation.
When will this study be completed and how will the Commission ensure that car companies wishing to establish new plants in the European Union are not placed at a competitive disadvantage against aid offers from non-EU countries, inducing them to resite their operations outside the Union?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(8 February 2000)
The Commission introduced a Community framework for state aid to the motor vehicle industry in 1989 (the ‘car framework’) with the twofold aim of increasing the transparency of aid flows and imposing strict discipline in the granting of such aid in order to reduce distortion of competition to a minimum.
The current framework entered into force on 1 January 1998 for a three year period. The framework stipulates that at the end of that period, the Commission will decide whether to extend it, in particular in the light of the status of the proposed multisectoral framework.
The Commission has recently started work on the future of the car framework. An independent consultant has been appointed to assist the Commission. Extensive discussions will be held with the Member States and the automotive industry. The Commission should be able to adopt a final decision on the future of the car framework in July 2000.
Regarding unfair competition from third countries offering aid packages with the view to obtaining relocation of activities, recent experience shows that often when a car manufacturer is considering the location of an investment project (for which the targeted markets are in Western Europe) the alternative is either to invest in the Community or to develop new operations in the applicant countries. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/101
Europe agreements provide for the application by these countries of the ‘acquis communautaire’ in the field of state aid. This means that under these agreements the applicant countries cannot grant unfair aid packages to a company investing in their country. The Commission is currently investigating public aid cases concerning car manufacturers in Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia. An exemplary co-operation took place this year between the Czech Republic and the Commission in the assessment by the Czech authorities of an aid offer to Skoda (a subsidiary of the Volkswagen group). The Community rules were applied and the final aid amount was reduced from from € 130 million to € 22 million.
(2000/C 280 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2683/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Competition law and the Spanish electricity sector
In October the Spanish Government announced that if approval were not granted for aid to cover the costs of transition to competition (CTCs) for the electricity companies, consumers’ bills would rise. The body representing the electricity industry recently reiterated this point, in an attempt to reinforce the idea that these measures, currently under investigation by the European Commission as state aids, are positive.
Quite apart from the fact that it does not appear to make sense, this announcement demonstrates that although the liberalisation of the electricity sector has gone through, the companies enjoy a position of joint dominance which allows them to fix their prices with the government without reference to competitors, since none in fact exist.
Does the Commission agree that these assertions by the Spanish Government and the electricity companies prove that competition does not exist within the Spanish electricity industry?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(25 February 2000)
The Spanish government has notified the Commission of its plans to grant the companies in the electricity sector a financial compensation in order to help their adaptation to competition following the liberal- isation of the sector under Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1).
At present, the Commission is closely examining this notification. The Commission has not yet finalised this examination, and can thus not communicate its results yet.
The Commission has not recently made any other investigation on competition in the electricity sector in Spain. Therefore, the Commission is currently not in a position to reply to the question of the Honourable Member.
(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.
(2000/C 280 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2685/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Damage done to the Pontine coast in Italy by the Lazio regional authorities
Several months ago, the regional authorities of Lazio ordered several ‘environmental regeneration’ operations at Porto Badino, in the commune of Terracina. Gravel was spread along the water’s edge and several kilometres of beach were subsequently ruined and rendered inaccessible as a result of the gravel C 280 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
deposits on the beach. This had a disastrous effect in both environmental terms, by endangering the area’s natural beauty, and economic terms, as the area is now less attractive to tourists. Moreover, it appears that this ‘regeneration’ might even be extended to surrounding areas on the Lazio coast.
1. Does the Commission not consider that this runs counter to Directive 76/160/EEC (1) on the quality of bathing water and Directive 76/464/EEC (2) on the discharge of dangerous substances into the aquatic environment?
2. Given its impact on the natural habitat, does it not also breach Directive 92/43/EEC (3)?
3. Will the Commission contact the relevant authorities, and in particular the president of the Lazio Region, the regional councillor for the environment and the mayor of Terracina, to ask them to shed light on the reasons for the above operations and the research on which the project was based?
4. Does the Commission not think it would be advisable to call on the competent authorities to apply Community law with greater prudence?
5. What is the Commission’s general view on the matter?
(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1. (2) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23. (3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(11 February 2000)
The Honourable Member makes reference to a situation which is not covered by Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water or Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
Under Directive 76/464/EEC ‘discharge’ means the introduction into the waters referred to in paragraph 1 of any substances in List I or List II of the Annex. In this specific case, the application of the gravel material was limited to the beach and the coastal zone, therefore, no ‘discharge’ to the aquatic environment took place. Furthermore, the substances mentioned by the Honourable Member are not included in List I or List II of the Annex. Inert gravel material could be considered neither as list I nor list II substance.
Directive 76/160/EEC aims to protect the environment and human health by reducing the pollution of bathing water and to protect such waters against further deterioration. To this purpose it set out a monitoring system which requires Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure the quality of the bathing water conforms to the limit values and the minimum frequency and method of sampling operations given in the Annex. Possible breach of the Directive can be envisaged only in so far as a lack of conformity to the given limit values can be demonstrated with reference to the bathing area concerned.
Directive 92/43/EEC sets out obligations for Member States concerning the protection of special areas of conservation (SPA) and to sites of community importance (SIC) identified under the Directive. However, the area mentioned by the Honourable Member is neither part of a SPA designated pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC nor of a SIC proposed pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, Directive 92/43/EEC is not of application in the specific case.
The circumstances raised by the Honourable Member could be relevant under Council Directive 97/11/EEC amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1). Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Directive states: Subject to Article 2 (3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States shall determine through: (a) a case-by-case examination, or (b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Annex II lists at No10(k): Coastal work to combat erosion and 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/103
maritime works capable of altering the coast through the construction, for example, of dykes, moles, jetties and other sea defence works, excluding the maintenance and reconstruction of such works. Provided that the work to which the Honourable Member refers can be considered as a project under the class mentioned, it would have been made the subject of an examination.
The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about the matter and to ensure the observance of relevant Community law.
(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2000/C 280 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2686/99
by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Compliance with the nitrates directive by the Flemish Region
According to the Vlaamse MilieuMaatschappij (Flemish Environment Society) there will be double the permitted amount of fertiliser in the Flemish Region in the year 2000. Total fertiliser production amounts to 90 000 tonnes of phosphates and there is room for only 50 000 tonnes. As a result, compliance with the European nitrates directive by the year 2003 looks unlikely. It should also be pointed out that in 1996 phosphate production was already running at 82 million kg (37 million from cattle-breeding, 32 million from pig-breeding and 11 million from poultry breeding). There were also 5 million kg of artificial fertiliser. The 700 000 kg phosphates from sheep, goats and mink have not been taken into account.
1. Is the Commission aware of the rise in the volume of fertiliser produced in the Flemish Region? If so, what is the Commission’s attitude towards this trend in the light of the adverse effect on compliance with the nitrates directive? If not, what is the Commission’s assessment of compliance with the nitrates directive in the Flemish Region?
2. What arguments and positions did the Commission refer to in its recent letter to the Belgian Federation concerning compliance with the European nitrates directive? Does the Commission give proposals and a timetable in this letter to ensure full and proper compliance with the nitrates directive in the Belgian Federation, and in particular in the Flemish Region? If so, what proposals and what timetable?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(22 February 2000)
The Commission is aware of the serious problems in the Flemish Region of Belgium caused by the presence of large quantities of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) resulting from the use of chemical fertilisers over 300 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare and the spreading of livestock manure on farmland, also representing over 300 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare. These excessive quantities are the cause of diffuse groundwater pollution, to which the Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij (Flemish Environmental Association) draws attention in its reports, and the eutrophication of most surface waters; they are also contributing to the eutrophication of the North Sea.
Given this situation, the Flemish Region of Belgium has not, in the Commission’s view, designated as vulnerable zones, under Article 3 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1), all the areas of its territory concerned. Under the terms of Article 5 of the Directive, vulnerable zones must be the object of an action programme including measures which ensure that, for each farm or livestock unit, the amount of livestock manure applied to the land each year, including by the animals themselves, does not exceed a specified amount per hectare. The specified amount per hectare is the amount containing 210 kilograms of C 280 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
nitrogen for 1999 to 2002 and 170 kilograms of nitrogen from 2002. These limits will lead to a restriction on the amount of slurry and solid manure spread on the land, and will therefore restrict the phosphorus input as well. The action programmes must also lay down, as required by Annex III.1.3 of the Directive and in order to comply with Annex II.A.6 requirements, the maximum amounts of nutrients which may be applied to the land, taking account of crop requirements, soil supply and chemical and organic nitrogen input and maintaining a balance between them. This implies careful use of both chemical and organic fertilisers.
As part of the infringement procedure initiated against Belgium, the Commission sent Belgium a reasoned opinion as provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. If the comments submitted by the Belgian authorities are judged unsatisfactory, the Commission could bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
The Commission does not publicise the details of infringement procedures. It did, however, publish a press release (2) when it decided to send Belgium the aforesaid reasoned opinion. The press release indicated that Belgium had not, in the Commission’s view, applied the Directive’s criteria when designating the vulnerable zones. The Belgian authorities had failed to include waters which had been reported to be polluted by nitrates. Moreover, the action programmes are incomplete for Flanders and inexistent for Brussels and Wallonia, the monitoring system is inadequate and the first implementation report presented by Belgium was unsatisfactory.
Lastly, it should be pointed out that in a reasoned opinion the Commission does not suggest what measures should be taken by the Member State concerned or when it should take them to ensure that the Directive in question is properly implemented, since the Directive itself indicates what has to be achieved and by when. The Commission’s role is to check that the measures the Member States adopt comply with the provisions of the Directive.
(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991. (2) IP 99/450, 2.7.1999.
(2000/C 280 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2689/99
by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(11 January 2000)
Subject: Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (COM(98) 76): pollutants (Article 2(27) in conjunction with Annex VIII)
1. Is it correct to say that when Bentonite or similar natural substances are used in civil engineering, applying the best available technology (BAT), groundwater is unlikely to suffer lasting effects?
2. Is it correct to say that, when considering the term ‘Material in suspension’, as referred to in Annex VIII, point 10, a distinction has to be made between materials that could damage the environment and materials consisting mainly of, for example, natural clay minerals (as does Bentonite) and consequently harmless from the environmental point of view?
3. Would it be contrary to the water framework Directive if, to clarify the law, the term ‘Material in suspension’ in Annex VIII, point 10, were described more specifically as ‘Suspensions containing environmentally harmful material in suspension’, or should such additional detail be laid down in the water legislation of the individual Member States?
4. Should further discussions fail to produce a more clear-cut definition of the term ‘Material in suspension’ in Annex VIII to the proposed water framework Directive, would the Member States then be required, so as to enable Bentonite or similar materials to be used, to make provision in their national law to replace prior authorisation with generally binding rules, having regard to Article 13(3)(f) of the Directive? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/105
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(4 February 2000)
Civil engineering works in particular affect the groundwater in a number of different ways, but normally only temporarily. Following extensive consultations, it has been concluded that a derogation from the general ban on discharges into the groundwater should be allowed for many of these effects. For this reason, both the amended proposal of the Commission of 17 June 1999 for a European Parliament and Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1) and the common position of the Council of 20 October 1999 on a European Parliament and Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy 9085/3/99 (2) allow the Member States to grant derogations in such cases. Since the Member States and their regions display variations in terms of geology, hydrology and water resources, it makes sense to leave this question to the Member States, but to lay down the criteria in Community legislation.
The Commission does not share the view that materials in suspension consisting of natural clay minerals are in themselves harmful to the environment. Chemically and biologically inert materials in suspension can also cause considerable harm to the environmental quality of the water, e.g. by covering the biocoenoses of the microfauna and microflora in surface waters and by damaging spawning grounds.
If Parliament and the Council adopt the proposal for a Directive as described above, it will be for the Member States to decide whether and to what extent they apply the derogations. In its opinion (first reading) of 11 February 1999 on a Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (3), Parliament attached particular importance to the criteria for derogations. The possibility for Member States to grant derogations from the prohibition on direct discharges into the groundwater in this and some other cases is contained in Article 11(3)(g) of the Council’s common position.
(1) OJ C 342 E, 30.11.1999. (2) Not yet published in the Official Journal. (3) OJ C 150, 28.5.1999.
(2000/C 280 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2690/99 by Thierry La Perriere (UEN) to the Council
(3 January 2000)
Subject: EU-Turkish relations, human rights, and Christian minorities
In the negotiations on implementation of the Customs Union and Turkey’s application to join the European Union, the Council is focusing especially on the situation of the Kurds.
There are other minorities in Turkey. Christians make up quite a substantial portion of its population. In the past, Christian Turks have suffered human rights violations on a massive scale, and their situation is still extremely precarious.
Can the Council say whether, when conducting the ongoing negotiations with Turkey, it is likewise focusing on the situation of the Christian minorities?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
The Helsinki European Council decided that Turkey is a candidate State destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate States. Compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria is a prerequisite for the opening of any accession negotiations. The Council underlines that stability of institutions guaranteeing human rights and respect for and protection of minorities is one of the Copenhagen political criteria. This naturally includes the Christian minorities. C 280 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
According to the Helsinki European Council conclusions, building on the existing European strategy, Turkey, like other candidate States, will benefit from a pre-accession strategy to stimulate and support its reforms. This will include enhanced political dialogue, with emphasis on progressing towards fulfilling the political criteria for accession with particular reference inter alia to the issue of human rights. This too naturally includes the Christian minorities.
(2000/C 280 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2693/99 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(3 January 2000)
Subject: The Russian Federation’s ultimatum to the city of Grozny
The whole world has condemned the ruthless ultimatum given by the Russian Federation’s political and military authorities to the 50 000 inhabitants and the resistance groups in the city of Grozny. However, the only reactions to this ultimatum on the part of the Presidency, the High Representative for the CFSP and the Commission have been verbal condemnations and expressions of concern, warnings and the ’studying’ of possible counter-measures.
The changes to the terms of the ultimatum made on 7 December by the Russian authorities do not affect the threat of extermination faced by tens of thousands of civilians because it is virtually impossible to evacuate them under the bombardments.
Does not the Council believe that actions speak louder than words and that it should suspend, temporarily but immediately, the partnership and cooperation agreements entered into with Moscow as well as any form of direct or indirect aid to the Russian Federation?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
The European Council on 10 and 11 December in Helsinki strongly condemned the intense bombard- ments of Chechen cities, the threat levelled at the residents of Grozny and the ultimatum set by the Russian military commanders.
In the light of the situation in Chechnya, the European Council decided that the implementation of the Common Strategy on Russia should be reviewed, the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement be partly suspended and the trade provisions applied strictly. On TACIS, the European Council asked the budgetary authority to consider the transfer of some funds from TACIS to the humanitarian assistance. Moreover, financing from the budget for 2000 should be limited to priority areas, including human rights, the rule of law, support for the civil society and nuclear safety.
However, it has to be kept in mind that many of the cooperation programmes under the Common Strategy and the PCA are in the strong interest of the European Union, e.g. on nuclear safety, disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as democratic institution building and civil society.
These decisions of the European Council were notified to Russia in a letter from Prime Minister Lipponen and Secretary-General/High Representative Solana to Prime Minister Putin on 11 December. On 24 January 2000 the General Affairs Council invited the Commission to re-focus the Tacis 2000 programme on core areas directly promoting democratic values, and to transfer uncommitted balances to humanitarian assistance and promoting networking in civil society, as well as to suspend consideration of the possible extension of additional GSP preferences for Russia. It expressed its concern about the increasing number of trade disputes originating in infringements by Russia of the PCA as well as sectoral agreements and noted the Commission’s intention to bring forward counter-measures against the Russian tax on exports of ferrous scrap. It invited the Commission to press ahead with similar action in other areas of EU concern. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/107
(2000/C 280 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2694/99 by Jas Gawronski (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(11 January 2000)
Subject: Measures to resolve the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea
Can the Commission indicate what measures it intends to take with regard to the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia?
At the Joint Assembly with representatives of the ACP countries last October in Nassau the Members of the European Parliament requested the Council to take all the necessary measures to ensure that Ethiopia accepts and implements the peace plan proposed by the OAU. Up to now, Ethiopia has still not committed itself to the agreement and is still violating the fundamental rights of the Eritrean citizens resident on its territory.
Article 5 of the Lomé Convention provides for the suspension of cooperation between the European Union and the ACP States in cases of violation of human rights. Can the Commission indicate the reasons why it continues to cooperate with Ethiopia?
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(31 January 2000)
The Commission has expressed to both governments and on various occasions its grave concern about the conflict. It has called on both sides to cease all hostilities and stop the fighting. The Commission has used all diplomatic means at its disposal to underline to both governments the need to resolve and settle the conflict by peaceful means only. Moreover, the Union Presidency has addressed various letters to both governments while a number of Union declarations have been issued on this matter. Regular contacts have been established between the Commission delegations and the respective governments and between the Commission and the respective embassies in Brussels. Furthermore, the Commissioner responsible for development has held meetings with both parties where he underlined the position of the Commission.
The Commission has expressed its unequivocal support to the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) efforts aiming at a peaceful resolution of the conflict. It has strongly supported the OAU framework agreement as the only basis for a peaceful solution. In this respect, the Commission fully supports the nomination of the Italian deputy Minister of foreign affairs, Senator Serri, as the Union Presidency’s special representative to assist the OAU in its mediating efforts. The Commission is examining ways, together with the OAU Secretariat, in which the Commission could assist the OAU, in particular in relation to the implementation of the framework agreement.
The Commission has presented a communication to the Council on co-operation with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries involved in armed conflicts. The Presidency is presently preparing draft Council conclusions on the basis of this Commission document. In the meantime and in the absence of a Union position on the matter, the Commission does not consider appropriate to take unilateral and isolated measures in the case of the Ethiopia Eritrea conflict. However, the Commission has already decided for structural adjustment programmes to allocate funds in smaller ‘tranches’ and link further disbursements to a periodic review of the conflict and its possible impact on the public spending, particularly in the social sectors. As a consequence disbursement of structural adjustment funds to Ethiopia has been halted since January 1999.
(2000/C 280 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2696/99 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 January 2000)
Subject: Internal market: Restrictive practices in car sales
Given that vehicles from Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland can be sold in the UK at prices well below the manufacturers’ UK list prices and that various other countries also provide substantial savings C 280 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(in Finland, for example, some vehicles cost up to 60 % less than in the UK, a specific example being the Saab 9-3 2-0 SE coupé, whose pre-tax price in Finland is £9 223 whereas in the UK it is £20 220).
Given that the Commission publishes six-monthly car-price tables (Ref. IV/F2/0599) which, however, list prices only for left-hand drive vehicles, thereby clouding clear price comparisons for consumers in the UK.
1. Will the Commission extend its present service and publish price tables for right-hand drive vehicles in each Member Sates in an effort to increase price transparency and allow everyone to take further advantage of the ’single market?
2. Is the Commission aware that manufacturers still employ a variety of strategies to discourage people in the UK from buying, or arranging for the purchase of, their preferred new car from sources outside the UK?
3. Does the Commission agree that such practices by automobile manufacturers deprive EU citizens of the real advantages of the single market in a domain which, for many people, involves their largest expenditure on any item of movable property?
4. If so, does the Commission agree that it ought to give very high priority to the taking of effective steps to end once and for all the uncompetitive practices of this kind that weaken consumer confidence in the credibility of the ‘internal market’?
5. What steps does the Commission therefore propose to take in the next six months on this matter?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(26 January 2000)
The Commission is indeed aware of the price discrepancies for cars between the United Kingdom and other Member States. Contrary to what is stated in the Honourable Member’s question, British prices and supplements for right-hand drive (RHD) specification in each Member State have always been published in the Commission’s regular report on car prices (1). It has been found that the price differences observed since 1997 are partly due to the strength of the Pound Sterling and the additional cost of British specification, while a part must be attributed to low net prices in Member States with high car taxation (Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland in particular). The strong demand from British consumers to buy cars in mainland Europe is to an appreciable extent due to the increased price transparency created through this report.
High price differentials as such do not constitute a violation of European competition rules. The Commission’s task is to ensure that parallel trade, which is an important market-related factor for reducing price differentials, is not affected by anti-competitive practices incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (2) granting a block exemption to car distribution. In this respect, since 1995, the Commission has undertaken a number of major initiatives, including the opening of ex-officio proceedings against certain car manufacturers and their networks and requesting the establishment of telephone help lines by manufacturers, with the aim of ensuring that consumers from the United Kingdom also can buy a car in another Member State and benefit from the achievements of the internal market.
As an example to be mentioned, the Commission’s decision adopted in 1998 (3) against Volkswagen AG imposed a fine of € 102 million on the undertaking for impeding citizens from other Member States from buying a new car in Italy.
The present high level of car prices in the United Kingdom and possible restrictive practices by car manufacturers is also a matter of concern for the British authorities responsible for competition. They have decided to carry out extensive investigations with regard to the situation of the British market and a report from the United Kingdom competition commission with some proposals for remedies is expected, in principle, for the end of January 2000. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/109
The Commission is closely following this exercise in particular, since it will have to evaluate whether Regulation (EC) no 1475/95 functions in a satisfactory manner in the Member States. It will, to that effect, issue a report by 31 December 2000. The impact of this Regulation on consumers will be one of the key elements of the evaluation. This report will serve as a basis for determining the future legal framework for the car industry and for a possible revision of Regulation (EC) no 1475/95. In this respect, the Commission firmly intends to take all the necessary measures to arrive at the most satisfactory distribution system for cars in the interest of the European consumers.
(1) See for example Press Release IP/99/554 of 22 July 1999. (2) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995. (3) OJ L 124, 25.4.1998.
(2000/C 280 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2698/99 by Ole Krarup (EDD) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Control over currency reserves
The national central banks of countries taking part in the Euro (third stage) are to transfer control over a specified proportion of their currency reserves to the ECB.
If a Member State is obliged to leave the Euro, will control of its currency reserves automatically return to its central bank free of any charges, financial penalties or the like?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(18 February 2000)
The EC Treaty makes no provision for a State in the euro area to leave that area. Consequently, it contains no provisions covering the possible repayment of reserves to the national Central Bank.
(2000/C 280 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2701/99 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Legal action on British beef in the French market
Will the Commission expedite an action in the European Court of Justice in order to obtain an interlocutory ruling which will enable British beef to re-enter the French market from which it has been unlawfully excluded?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(16 February 2000)
The Commission has already opened the infringement procedure under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty against France and on 4 January 2000 brought the case before the Court of justice (case reference No C-1/00).
The Commission decided not to lodge an application for interim measures with the Court. A number of very stringent conditions have to be fulfilled for the successful pursuit of such an application. Taking account, in particular, of the caselaw of Court of justice in past cases involving the issue of interim measures, especially in relation to public health, the Commission reached the conclusion that there was little likelihood of the Court ordering such measures in the present case. C 280 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2712/99 by Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Working time directive
1. How can the Commission, after confirming in a letter of 10 May 1993 from Commissioner Padraig Flynn to the principal organisations in Denmark, that EU directives could be implemented via the Danish collective bargaining system (the content of this letter forming part of the basis for the decision to adopt the motion for adjournment on 30 November 1993 retaining the Danish collective bargaining model as the basis for implementing EU directives etc.), now send a letter of formal notice to the Danish Government claiming that Denmark’s implementation of the EU Working Time Directive is not, in the Commission’s view, in compliance with the Union Treaty?
2. Has the Commission altered its view between the time Mr Flynn’s letter was sent and the time the Commission sent its letter of formal notice to Denmark on the implementation of the Working Time Directive? If so, what caused the Commission to change its view? Was the Commission’s endorsement of the political validity of Denmark’s implementation of directives via the Danish collective bargaining system of 10 May 1993 influenced by the fact that one week later the Danes were to vote in their second referendum on the Treaty on European Union?
3. Can the Commission confirm that, when it sent its letter of formal notice to Denmark regarding the implementation of the Working Time Directive, there had not been a single case of the parties involved in the implementation of the Working Time Directive in Denmark via collective bargaining ever having been unable to achieve the results prescribed in that Directive (see the Agreement by 11 Member States in the Union Treaty)?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(3 March 2000)
The letter of the Commissioner who was in charge of Employment and Social Affaires to which the Honourable Member refers to states that one way of implementing directives could be by ‘duly notified collective agreements at national level and that legislation will be taken into consideration as a last resort and as a safety valve’. This is in line with Article 137(4) (ex Article 118) of the EC Treaty, which clearly states that collective agreements can be used as a means of implementing directives. Furthermore, the Court of justice has laid down certain conditions should collective agreements be used as the only means to implement a directive or certain provisions of a directive (1). In this context, the essential condition is that all workers within the scope of the directive are covered by its provisions.
1. The position of the Commission and the relevant Community law, as interpreted by the Court of justice, have not changed since the time the letter was sent in 1993.
2. The Commission has received two complaints from Danish trade unions on the matter.
(1) Case 143/83 Commission v. Denmark [1985] ECR 427. See also e.g. Commission v. Italy [1986] ECR 2291.
(2000/C 280 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2716/99 by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Human rights violations in Iran
What is the volume of EU exports to Iran and imports from Iranian companies into the EU economic area? Is the Commission aware of any arms transfers from EU Member States to Iran? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/111
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(2 February 2000)
Community exports to Iran amounted to € 4 389 million in 1998. Imports amounted to € 3 980 million. Figures for 1999 are not yet available. The Commission is not aware of any arms deliveries from Member States to Iran. Relevant arms export control regimes are in force.
(2000/C 280 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2717/99
by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Human rights violations in Iran
What is the Commission’s general view on the latest human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(8 February 2000)
The Commission follows with concern the human rights situation in Iran. It has taken an active part in Union action in this area, through demarches and in the Union-Iran comprehensive dialogue.
Although widespread human rights violations continue in Iran, there has been progress made in the last few years. One of the latest examples is the recent release of the German businessman, Mr Hofer, which the Commission warmly welcomes.
The Commission will continue to follow developments in Iran closely in areas of concern, in particular regarding human rights, issues of non-proliferation and Iran’s attitude to the Middle East Peace Process.
In the light of these developments, and in the hope that they will be continued, the Commission would wish to see a gradually improving relationship with Iran. It will watch with particular attention the coming Majlis elections and any further policy development thereafter.
(2000/C 280 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2720/99
by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Money transactions
I am deeply concerned that European consumers are being misled in money exchanges across Europe. I have noted that, in the event of money exchange, customers are not being given a net receipt prior to the exchange which shows the exchange rate, commission and other deductions.
Can the Commission indicate whether there are any plans to introduce legislation which would protect consumers in these situations? C 280 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(23 February 2000)
The Honourable Member will be aware that on 23 April 1998 the Commission issued Recommendation 98/286/EC on banking charges for conversion to the euro (1), which contains some important provisions on transparency. The Commission considers that transparency of conversion or exchange charges is essential to promote competition and thus to arrive at a reduction of those charges. Article 3 of the Recommendation provides that, for conversions or exchanges of currencies in the euro zone, banks and other bodies whose business it is to exchange bank notes (and Bureaux de Change as well) should provide to their customers clear and transparent information before a transaction is effected, namely written information on any charges to be applied.
Furthermore, the Commission announced in this Recommendation that it intends to monitor the application of this standard of good practice. The results of a study launched by the Commission at the end of 1999 on this subject will be presented in a communication in the first half of 2000. Furthermore, the various aspects of cross-border payments, including the exchange of bank notes, have been dealt with by the Commission in the communication on retail payments in the internal market (2).
Where abuses of transparency requirements have been brought to the attention of the Commission, it has pursued the matter with the national authorities. This has generally resulted in an end to any reported breaches. The above mentioned retail payments communication will provide a further incentive to financial institutions to comply with these provisions on transparency.
(1) OJ L 130, 1.5.1998. (2) COM(00) 36.
(2000/C 280 E/118) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2722/99
by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Protection of the Iberian wolf
Members of the environmental group Ciconia in Zamora (Spain) have launched a campaign to protest at the auction of hunting rights for three Iberian wolves in the Culebra hills, as allowed by the Castilla y León regional government since 1997. Quite apart from being in breach of the law passed by the Spanish government listing this animal in the Catalogue of Endangered Species, this measure does not resolve the social tension caused by the lack of compensation for harm caused to livestock.
Under Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on habitats, the wolf is classed as a protected species south of the Duero river, and a controlled species to the north of the river. According to experts, the problem caused by the wolf population in Spain (which estimates place at approximately 2000) is one of control, and of perception by different social groups, particularly in rural areas, and first and foremost by herdsmen and livestock breeders.
Will the Commission bring pressure to bear on the Spanish authorities to halt the auction of hunting rights for Iberian wolves, as authorised by the Castilla y León regional government?
Could the Commission, together with the national authorities, put in place an effective information programme for herdsmen and livestock breeders on the importance of conservation measures for wolves, and a system to provide fair and rapid compensation for the damage they cause?
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/113
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(22 February 2000)
The Spanish wolf population in the North of the Duero River is included on the Annex V of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as species whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures.
The Spanish authorities have adopted exceptional management measures for these populations in the North of the Duero River, such as the possibility to be hunted under specific circumstances. These measures are carried out to avoid too much damage to livestock. Article 14 of Directive 92/43/EEC seems to have been respected.
According to information held by the Commission, the Spanish wolf population in the North of the Duero River is increasing.
Spain is the Member State with the biggest wolf population. Action plans including compensation for damage, radio-tracking studies and infrastructure impact studies about the populations are ongoing.
Furthermore, agri-environmental measures specifically tailored to wolf conservation are being implemented in Castilla y León areas such as Sierra de la Culebra.
(2000/C 280 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2723/99 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Regeneration of fishing grounds
The European Community seeks to conserve the different species present in fishing grounds through the balanced management of resources. However, in spite of this, some traditional Community fishing grounds are experiencing a decline in the fish population.
Could the Commission order a scientific study into the possibility of regenerating traditional fishing grounds?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(4 February 2000)
Rebuilding of fish populations can essentially be achieved through restocking by artificial means or by allowing enough adult fish to spawn in natural conditions following conservation measures.
Restocking by artificial means in the open sea has been generally proved an inefficient method; in a few cases, such as for Baltic salmon, it has induced a risk of extinction for the wild populations.
Studies on the rebuilding of fish populations by conservation measures are common in fisheries science, and are carried out mostly under the request of the Commission. These studies include work carried out by the International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) and its working groups, study groups, committees, and other subsidiary bodies; work carried out by the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries (STECF) and its subsidiary bodies; studies in support of the common fisheries policy carried out under budgetary line B2-1810, and studies made following ad hoc requests on the basis of a special need of scientific information. The results of all these studies are available to the Members of the Parliament upon request. C 280 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2724/99
by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Aeolus project
As part of the Leonardo programme, the EU finances research and professional training in alternative energy sources under the Aeolus project. One of the sources concerned is wind power, which, as well as certain advantages, also has several drawbacks, including the high noise levels generated by the windmills and the visual impact of these large constructions on the countryside, frequently in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
In view of the Community requirement for at least 10 % of electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2010, and given the ubiquitous construction of wind farms, in increasing numbers each year, has the Commission considered making an environmental impact assessment obligatory for wind farms built using Community funds? Would the Commission be prepared to carry out a study into how their environmental impact could be kept to a minimum?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(22 February 2000)
Point 3i of Annex II to Council Directive 97/11/EEC amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), provides for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for installations for the harnessing of windpower for energy production.
Article 4 of the abovementioned Directive states that, for projects listed in Annex II, Member States may decide whether projects are to be made subject to an EIA, on the basis of a case by case examination or thresholds or criteria set by the Member State. It is therefore for the Member State to determine whether or not a project is to be made subject to an EIA. If it is, measures may be laid down to reduce its impact on the environment.
(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2000/C 280 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/99
by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Accident rate in the fishing industry
The accident rate in the European Union’s fishing sector has reached an alarming level. Fatal accidents occur as a result of the particular conditions in which fishermen work.
Is the Commission in possession of country-specific figures on work-related accidents in the fishing sector over recent years? Can it provide figures on the death rate in the sector? Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the numbers of deaths caused by shipwreck and the numbers owing to other causes, such as accidents on board?
What measures is the Commission taking or does it intend to take to reduce the number of accidents? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/115
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(1 March 2000)
The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern with regard to the situation in the fisheries sector, which is to be regarded as a high-risk branch of economic activity.
On the basis of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (1), and of the Council Resolution of 21 December 1987 (2), the Commission has since 1990 had in place a project to harmonise statistics on accidents at work in the Community as a whole. This project is called ESAW (European Statistics on Accidents at Work). The Council recognised the importance of this project in the resolution of 27 March 1995 (3). The first set of results from this project refer to accidents at work in 1993 and the latest figures available are for 1996.
Despite the efforts that it has made, the Commission still does not, however, have reliable and complete information on accidents in the ‘fisheries and aquaculture’ sector, as only some of the Member States provided the necessary data.
However, estimates based on only five Member States reveal that the incidence of accidents in this industry, both accidents resulting in absence of more than three days and fatal accidents, is well above the average for all the other sectors of economic activity. On the basis of the partial data available to the Commission, the trend during the period 1994-1996 in the fisheries sector was negative (+ 2,1 % for accidents resulting in absence of morte than three days and + 1,0 % for fatal accidents).
With regard to the causes of fatal accidents through drowning etc., the Commission does not have the information requested by the Honourable Member. These data will be available from the year 2001, when phase III of the ESAW project specifically relating to the causes and circumstances of accidents will be running.
In conclusion, the Commission would like to point out to the Honourable Member that two directives regarding the health and safety protection of workers and the reduction of accidents at work in the fisheries sector have been adopted by the Council. They are Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels (4), and Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels (5).
It is the responsibility of the Member States to monitor the application of the national legislation transposing these Directives, thus ensuring that the prevention policy prescribed therein contributes effectively to reducing the incidence of accidents and occupational diseases in the fisheries’ sector.
(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989. (2) OJ C 28, 3.2.1988. (3) OJ C 168, 4.7.1995. (4) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992. (5) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
(2000/C 280 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2726/99 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Deforestation in Amazonia
Without even consulting the National Environmental Council, the Brazilian government, together with the National Agricultural Council, the body representing rural landowners, has introduced a bill in the Senate to reform the Forestry Code. The press, NGOs and environmental associations such as the WWF have described the bill as an ‘environmental crime’. The bill provides, inter alia, for a general amnesty for all environmental crimes and authorises the destruction of native vegetation in permanently protected areas, C 280 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
including hillsides and riverbanks, considered by conservationists as areas of supreme importance. If adopted, the law would worsen an already grim situation in which the forestry management plans drawn up by the Brazilian government are routinely not adhered to.
Furthermore, in its worldwide campaign on conservation in Amazonia, Greenpeace reports that every day an area of forest the size of 5 200 football pitches is destroyed, and that in 1998 alone 1 680 000 hectares of forest disappeared.
In accordance with commitments on climate change, and the agreements on environmental protection in Amazonia secured as part of the Rio Agenda, could the Commission intervene with the Brazilian authorities to ensure that the Forestry Code reform bill is amended so that agricultural and forestry-related activity is compatible with the conservation of the Amazonian forest, which belongs to the whole of humanity?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(2 February 2000)
The environment and the principle of sustainable development are central issues in the relationship of the Community with Latin America, with the subregional integration processes of Latin America and with the individual countries of Latin America. The Commission follows very closely the development of Brazilian policy in the field of the environment, which represents one of the priorities of our co-operation with Brazil, as specified in the Commission’s country strategy paper on Brazil approved in 1998 (1). To this end an environmental counsellor has been stationed at the Commission’s delegation in Brasilia.
Concerning the bill for a new forestry code (Codigo Florestal), as presented in the Brazilian Congress by a group of congressmen from various parties, the proposal included a number of highly controversial points, namely the reduction of the proportion of territory protected by law and a change in the definition of the concept itself of natural reserve. Due to the lively debate created by this bill, and due to the opposition from members of the Brazilian Congress, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and parts of the government itself, the bill has been temporarily retired and will be discussed again in March when the Brazilian Congress convenes again in an ordinary session.
Inside the government, the Minister of Environment, Mr José Sarney Filho, expressed his opposition to the very controversial proposal. Minister Sarney decided already in April 1999 that the revision of the current forestry code should be lead by the ‘National Council for the Environment’ (Conselho Nacional de Meio Ambiente), indicating that no decision by the government should be taken until this council pronounces on the conflicting issues.
Based on these circumstances, a specific intervention by the Commission is at this moment not being considered.
The problem behind this law is not a new one. Even though the Brazilian government appears to be seriously engaged in the protection of the environment, specifically in the Amazonian region, the compatibility of environmental policies with other public policies (in matters such as infrastructure, agrarian reform and use of land) is not always fully ensured.
The Commission fully supports an environmental policy based on the concept of sustainable development, whose main operational activity is the pilot programme for the conservation of the Brazilian rain forest (PPG7), a programme started in 1994 to which an amount of over € 70 million has been devoted so far by the Commission (of a total of some € 300 million granted by the international community, over 80 % of which is from Member States and the Commission). The conclusions of the recent participants’ meeting of PPG7 held in Brasilia in October 1999 underlined the need to help the Brazilian authorities better to co- ordinate their public policies in order to maximise the effects of sustainable development activities and to make easier the incorporation of the lessons of the pilot programme in Brazilian policy.
(1) IB/1052/98 FR/EN. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/117
(2000/C 280 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2729/99
by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Recognition of the seniority of civil servants from EEA countries
The recognition within the Community of the diplomas and professional experience of non-Community nationals is an extremely complex matter.
For example, the seniority of a Norwegian national working as a teacher in France cannot be recognised for regrading purposes because Note No FP/3 No 3916 of 5 May 1995 issued by the Public Service Ministry stipulates that only seniority acquired in the French civil service may be taken into account for such purposes. However, seniority acquired in the country of origin is taken into account for the purpose of admission to competitions organised within the French civil service.
1. What exactly is EU’s legal position on the recognition of the professional experience gained by a national of an EEA country employed in an EU Member State?
2. In particular, does a legal instrument providing that only the time spent in the service of the State in question may be taken into account when determining a civil servant’s seniority comply with the spirit of Community law or, indeed, the case law on public service-related matters established by the Court of Justice?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(25 February 2000)
This problem can exist for workers of Member States and also workers of European economic area (EEA) Member States.
The Commission is aware of the difficulties these workers, who have worked for a number of years in the public sector of a Member State, are encountering when recruited into the public service of another Member State, in that their previous experience is not taken into account for the purposes of determining their grade and seniority. Consequently such workers lose their years of previous experience and must restart their career from the beginning when they are recruited.
The Court of justice has ruled that comparable employment completed in the public service of another Member State must be taken into account for determining seniority (1).
The Commission has started infringement proceedings against several Member States, including France, on the basis of Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
The right of free movement for workers established within the Community under Article 39 (ex-Article 48) of the EC Treaty is extended to nationals of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through Article 28 of the EEA agreement. Sub-paragraph 2 makes it clear that such freedom of movement entails the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality as regards conditions of work and employment.
(1) Judgement of 15.1.1998 in Case C-15/96 (Kalliope Schöning-Kougebetopoulou v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg) [ECR 1998 I-0047]; and judgement of 12.3.1998 in Case C-187/96 (Commission v Greece) [ECR 1998 I-1095]. C 280 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2732/99 by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Nicaragua: corruption and EU aid
Following the arrest of the President of the Nicaraguan Court of Auditors, Mr Agustin Jarquin, who had spoken out against serious financial irregularities committed by the present government, does the EU intend to review its programme of aid to the country without delay, pending Mr Jarquin’s release, the reestablishment of proper institutional controls on the activities of the government and a thorough investigation of the above allegations?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(1 February 2000)
The cases of corruption reported by the President of the Nicaraguan Court of Auditors do not specifically relate to funds from the international community. Nevertheless, the Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern about the events leading to the Nicaraguan Controller-General’s arrest. The Commission considers that democratic institutions such as the Controller-General’s Office are the basis for the rule of law and development in each country and should therefore be able to function without political interference.
For this reason the Commission fully endorsed the European Union Troika’s request to the Nicaraguan Foreign Affairs Minister on 18 November 1999 to stress the European Union’s concern about the situation. The Commission is delighted that the points raised by the European Union and other members of the international community probably contributed to Mr Jaquin’s release on 24 December 1999, thus giving the authority back to such an important institution to control and verify the proper use of Nicaraguan public funds as well as funds from the international community.
In order to improve the control and proper utilisation of funds, the Commission applies a system for major projects using European experts in a management unit which supervises the correct and accountable use of Community funding, in accordance with the financing agreements. It also uses evaluation and monitoring missions to ensure the smooth running of projects and the proper use of financial resources, and the Commission Delegation in Managua plays an essential role in monitoring, making it possible to strengthen controls locally.
(2000/C 280 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2734/99 by Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Italian law which discriminates against disabled persons over the age of 65
Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam states that the Union is to combat all discrimination based on age.
Is the Commission aware of the fact that Italian law (Article 19 of Law No 118 of 30 March 1971 and subsequent amendments) provides for the granting of a life-long financial benefit for citizens who are completely disabled and who apply for the benefit before the age of 65 but that the benefit is not payable to those who, despite meeting all the other conditions for eligibility, apply for the benefit after the age of 65? Is it aware of the fact that Italian old people, despite meeting all the disability conditions required by law, are discriminated against on the basis of their age when they apply for the benefit, a fact which has a life-long impact on whether or not they receive the benefit?
Does the Commission intend to ask Italy to repeal this law, as a matter of urgency? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/119
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(1 March 2000)
The Commission has no legal basis to request a Member State to repeal such a measure. The organisation of social protection systems within the Member States is a national competence, provided that certain fundamental principles of Community law are respected. Community law does not, however, confer any right to equal treatment between different age groups.
On 25 November 1999, the Commission adopted a package of two legislative proposals and a programme to combat discrimination in the Community based on Article 13 (ex Article 6a) of the EC Treaty (1). These proposals must be accepted by the Council before they can take effect.
One of these initiatives is a horizontal directive to combat discrimination on grounds of disability or age. However, the scope of the proposal is limited to the field of employment and occupation. Therefore, social protection benefits are not covered by this proposal.
(1) COM(99) 564 final.
(2000/C 280 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2736/99 by Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Retired widow Mrs Maria Luisa Bolzoni 16-year wait for pension
Is the Commission aware of the fact that in a number of Member States there are very serious delays in the payment of old-age pensions?
Does the Commission intend to approach the INPS, which is responsible for paying pensions in Italy, in order to ensure that Mrs Maria Luisa Bolzoni, born on 3 November 1928 in Scandolara Ravara and resident in Bergamo, at 15 via Bonomelli, is at last paid the pension increase requested on 26 November 1994 in accordance with Article 6 of Law No 638/1983 and due to her, under Italian law, from 1 October 1983, not least because she has been waiting patiently for 16 years to be paid the pension increase to which she is entitled as a category SO-96000064 widow?
Can the Commission say how many more years this seventy-one year old Italian pensioner will have to wait?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(7 February 2000)
The Commission has no say in the matter raised by the Honourable Member, as it is a purely internal matter which is outside Community jurisdiction.
With regard to social welfare, the only binding Community provisions are the Regulations on social security for migrant workers and the Directives on equal treatment for men and women in social security schemes.
The organisation and operation of a scheme, eligibility for an old-age or retirement pension and the question of when the various benefits are to be awarded are matters which fall within the exclusive competence of the national authorities, provided that the above Community provisions are observed. C 280 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2738/99
by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Credit institutions
It would appear that credit institutions in Italy apply different interest rates within regions that are homogeneous and, moreover, that in the province of Latina (Lazio), despite deposits of thousands of billions of lire over several decades, the credit institutions have not invested in the region. Also, despite the inadequate levels of private investment and employment in the province, the banks are suspending loans and credits and demanding their immediate repayment thereby causing small- and medium-sized busi- nesses to close down for good. The banks’ exposure in the business sector only accounts for a few percentage points of the deposits held in the region.
Can the Commission say:
1. Whether it considers that it should encourage the Italian government and the European and Italian banking system to look into the above matter;
2. Whether it considers that it should take steps in order to ensure, for example through the consolidation of the exposure and the lifting of credit restrictions, that the small- and medium-sized business sector is revitalised in a region (province of Latina) which, furthermore, when considered in isolation, is in a state of economic crisis?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(25 February 2000)
As the Honourable Members are aware, under the EC Treaty and in particular Article 4 (former Article 3a) thereof provides for a Community economic policy based on the internal market and conducted in accordance with the principles of an open market economy with free competition.
By proposing and implementing measures to achieve the single market in banking services, and more generally financial services, both the Commission and the Community keep to this principle first because it is laid down by a higher-ranking legal provision and second because they are convinced that only an open market economy and free competition allow the best allocation of economic resources. With the introduction of the euro, this policy approach provides a unique opportunity for the Community to equip itself with a modern financial structure thereby reducing the cost of capital and financial intermediation to a minimum. Users of financial services, be they firms or individuals, will reap significant advantages and investment and employment Community-wide will be stimulated.
On the basis of these premisses, Community legislation and other measures establish the legal framework for the free movement of financial services throughout the Community and seek to ensure that competition is not distorted and that the single market produces a sound prudential situation and unquestionable stability. These principles have recently been reaffirmed by the Commission in its communication Implementing the framework for financial markets: Action plan (1) adopted on 26 May 1999. It was transmitted to Parliament and the Council the same day and confirmed by the Cologne European Council.
Within this established framework, it is for each credit establishment to define its own commercial and investment policy on the basis of its assessment of the market and the risks that go with it. The Commission feels that, quite apart from being legally questionable, public intervention designed to impose choices on the financial market would be an obstacle to the free movement of financial services and would, in the long term, be harmful to both firms and consumers, with a negative impact on development and employment.
(1) COM(99) 232 final. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/121
(2000/C 280 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2741/99
by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Initiatives aimed at promoting multiculturalism embracing the protection of regional identities as well as the protection of the identities of citizens who are immigrants resident in the Member States of the Union
In several Member States, including the Netherlands, the universities and the private and state schools are experimenting with educational methods for immigrants, from both outside and within the Community, which involve the teaching of the languages of the country of residence using their own native languages and cultures.
These methods are proving to be very effective and have been successfully applied in a regional context, for example in the Frisian region, where the so-called regional or minority language is also taught to immigrants, which represents a further step towards their full integration. Ensuring that all identities at all levels are valued is, moreover, an effective means of combating phenomena such as xenophobia, racism and the emergence of political and cultural extremism.
Can the Commission say what it thinks of the idea of evaluating initiatives and providing funding at European level in order to promote multicultural teaching methods which reflect all levels of identity for all citizens, from local and regional identities to those of immigrants legally resident in the Member States of the European Union?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(1 March 2000)
The Commission has a long tradition of supporting initiatives aimed at promoting multiculturalism and the integration of immigrants resident in the Member States. This tradition dates back to the adoption of Council Directive 77/486/EEC of 25 July 1977 on the education of the children of migrant workers (1).
Since 1977, the Commission has always included in its working programmes ‘intercultural education’ as a means to learn to cope in a positive and active way with social and cultural diversity. This spirit inspired the whole Socrates programme, n which there has been a specific action within Comenius dealing with intercultural education and migrant children. The initiatives covered by this action are and will be encouraged and funded in the second phase of the Socrates programme since intercultural education prepares future generations for living together in a democratic, plural society and contributes to the provision of equal opportunities for all citizens.
As the Honourable Member will be aware, in addition to the activities of the Socrates programme, the Commission provides some financial support for measures to promote and safeguard regional or minority languages and cultures. Priority areas include educational projects and teaching materials.
The languages intended to benefit from this action are the autochtonous languages traditionally spoken by a part of the population of Member States, or of European economic area (EEA) countries. The Commission is currently examining the feasibility of proposing a multiannual action programme in this area.
(1) OJ L 199, 6.8.1977. C 280 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2747/99 by Gérard Deprez (PPE-DE) to the Council
(13 January 2000)
Subject: Common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system
Many travellers seem to be suffering at the moment from the effects of gaps in the regulations in force concerning the denied-boarding compensation system in air transport (Council Regulation No 295/91 (1)). For instance, it seems that little compensation has actually been paid in cases of denied boarding, and that the information has not been properly conveyed in agencies or airports. In addition, the exclusion of charter flights and ticket-less (voucher) flights from the regulation’s scope denies compensation to many travellers who have suffered from overbooking.
A new proposal designed to make good these deficiencies was submitted to the Council in July 1998. Could the Council say why it has not yet taken a decision on the text, which is very important for all travellers, and say when it expects to do so?
(1) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991, p. 5.
Reply
(16 March 2000)
The Council is aware of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers. In general, it feels that that situation is often caused by the lack of proper information and that passengers ought to be made more aware of the rights they already have under Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport.
In order to make good certain deficiencies in the present rules, and in particular to cover the situation of charter flights and ticketless flights, the Council is examining a Commission proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 295/91. That proposal for a Regulation also includes provisions requiring more extensive information for passengers, both in travel agencies and at airports, regarding passengers’ rights to compensation.
The Council’s proceedings on this matter are progressing but the question of the application of the Regulation to the airport of Gibraltar has still to be settled. It is not possible at this stage to indicate dates as requested by the Honourable Member.
(2000/C 280 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2749/99 by Gérard Deprez (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: European campaign against violence against women
In the context of the Daphne initiative and the ‘European campaign against violence against women’, which resulted from Parliament’s 1997 resolution ‘Violence against women’ (A4-0250/97 (1)), could the Commission state:
1. which projects have been given aid in 1999, particularly in Belgium,
2. whether it considers these projects have had a real impact on violence against women,
3. if applicable, what does it intend to do to improve the effectiveness of these two initiatives, and
4. which campaign projects have already been drawn up and approved for 2000?
(1) OJ C 304, 6.10.1997, p. 55. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/123
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(2 March 2000)
As part of the European campaign to heighten public awareness about violence against women, the Commission has supported the following projects in Belgium: a national project involving the Council of French-speaking Women and a transnational project carried out by the European Women’s Lobby.
It is not possible for the Commission to evaluate at this stage the impact of these projects, since they are still in progress. The European campaign began in March 1999 and will end in May 2000. A closing conference is to be organised in collaboration with the Portuguese Presidency in Lisbon from 4 to 6 May 2000. In the course of this conference, a report evaluating the campaign will be presented. Its results will be taken into consideration for devising any future action in this field.
The Commission wishes to point out to the Honourable Member that, under the Daphne initiative (1997-1999), it has given assistance to 150 activities involving organisations aiming to combat violence against women, several of which are in Belgium, and that it will continue this action under the Daphne programme (2000-2003).
A list of the projects approved under this campaign is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament.
(2000/C 280 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2753/99 by Ole Krarup (EDD) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Criminal use of large denomination euro notes
Surveys in the USA have shown that only part of the total quantity of 100-dollar bills printed is used in the official, domestic US economy and that it must therefore be concluded that these banknotes form part of other economies, including the black economy, and are also used for payment in drug- trafficking transactions.
What are the Commission’s views concerning the large denomination euro notes (the value of which may be more than five times that of the largest dollar bill), in the light of the international role that the euro may play in criminal circles as a form of payment for drugs?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(25 February 2000)
Some participating Member States Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria, currently have high-value banknotes in a range of € 200 to € 600. A banknote of DM 1 000 is, for instance, in circulation in Germany. Hence, at least part of the European population is accustomed to using high-value banknotes for transactions and as a store of value. In this respect, high denominations of euro banknotes are replacing some high denominations of current national banknotes.
Euro banknotes, once they are introduced, will in all likelihood also circulate in noticeable quantities outside the euro zone since the euro is one of the most important currencies of the world. It is, of course, difficult to assess to what extent the euro will be used in unlawful transactions.
It is even more difficult to predict whether the € 200 and € 500 banknotes will have an influence on such use. In fact, as the Honourable Member rightly points out, dollar notes seem to play an important role in the black economy and drug-trafficking transactions despite the limited range of their nominal values.
The Commission will, within the limits of its competence, endeavour to detect any evidence of dispropor- tionate use of euro banknotes in unlawful transactions after 2001. C 280 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2760/99 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: The Tirana-Kukes-Prizren-Pristina road link
The Kosovo conflict and, more particularly, the exodus of hundreds of thousands of Kosovars to Albania, has not only shown up the inadequacy of road links between Albania and Kosovo but also seriously damaged existing roads.
Can the Commission provide any information at its disposal on plans to rebuild and modernise the Tirana- Kukes-Prizren-Pristina road? Can it say what time-scale is involved? Can it also say whether it regards this as a Union priority project for the region? Lastly, can it say say whether any of the various international organisations (such as the IBRD and World Bank) have decided to finance this project, and if so how much each will be contributing?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(1 February 2000)
The Commission considers the improvement of lines of communication in Kosovo and Albania as a priority, especially to make trade and the delivery of humanitarian aid easier. An emergency programme was set up before the onset of winter to ensure the survival of the Kosovar road network involving specific repairs to the roads. Priority routes for modernisation will be defined in the light of the analysis of foreseeable traffic flows to and from bordering countries. The Pristina-Skopje-Salonica route is a priority, the link with Tirana-Kukes is another possibility, as is the Montenegro route (Podgorica-Bar). The Tirana- Kukes-Pristina road is not on a Pan-European corridor or a major international transit route. The World Bank and the Italians are already rehabilitating the Tirana-Shkoder section, which is part of the Albanian national north-south network. The Shkoder-Kukes section has just been awarded a grant from the World Bank for urgent repairs. The final section between Kukes and the Kosovar border (Morina) may receive a grant from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Commission is not involved on the Tirana-Morina road link; however it is participating in Albania in several major projects on the Pan-European VIII corridor and the north-south national highway. The general state of the Tirana- Morina road due to lack of maintenance makes it unusable at certain times during the winter and extremely difficult throughout the year.
International organisations such as the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Develop- ment, (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) are not involved in financing for the road sector in Kosovo.
The Commission is ready to undertake the necessary studies with the United Nations Interim Administra- tion Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) on the possibility of improving the road network there and future work in Albania.
(2000/C 280 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2763/99 by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: EU lump-sum contribution to the UNDCP
The UNDCP (United Nations Drug Control Programme) is involved in carrying out projects to eradicate and replace opium cultivation in Afghanistan and in other South-East Asian States. In its reply to Question 68 (H-0558/99) the Commission states, ‘The Community is aware that alternatives to opium production are normally not competitive economically … The Taliban have a direct interest in the opium and heroin trade and have tried to link it with international recognition. The Commission has therefore not financed 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/125
any UNDCP alternative crop development programmes in Afghanistan either prior to, or since, the emergence of the Taliban movement.’ The European Union supports the UNDCP, however, through an annual lump-sum contribution entered against the budget line ‘North-south cooperation schemes in the context of the campaign against drug abuse’. While the Union does not fund the UNDCP programmes in Afghanistan directly, it supports their implementation indirectly, through its lump-sum contribution.
Does the Commission know how the UNDCP uses that Community lump-sum funding? Since it deems direct funding of opium eradication and substitution programmes in Afghanistan inappropriate and ineffective, has the Commission asked the UNDCP not to use the Community funding that it receives annually for such programmes? Has the Commission asked the UNDCP to suspend the programmes in question? If so, when and how? If not, does it intend to do so in future?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(1 February 2000)
Although the Commission was the third largest donor to the United Nations drug control programme (UNDCP) in 1999, the Commission does not provide it with general purpose funding as suggested by the Honourable Member. The financial regulations of the Community prohibit the provision of general purpose funding and restrict the funding of activities of United Nations organisations, funds and programmes to activities related to concrete projects. As stated in the Commission’s response to the Honourable Member’s Oral Question on this subject H-558/99n during question time at Parliament’s November 1999 part-session (1) during the period in question the Commission did not fund any UNDCP projects for eradication of illicit cultures or alternative development in Afghanistan.
(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 1999).
(2000/C 280 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2764/99
by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: JHA cooperation programmes: reports, evaluation and rights of the defence
Through the Community budget the European Union funds a range of programmes relating to cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs. The Grotius programme, in particular, which was established by Joint Action 96/636/JHA of 28 October 1996, provides for exchanges and incentives relating to research, seminars, conferences and training, and is aimed at legal practitioners (magistrates, lawyers, notaries, etc.).
What specific projects has the Commission financed? In addition, does the Commission have an analytical description of the projects and an evaluation of the initiatives funded and of the documents and studies produced? Finally, which projects have been financed with the aim of exploring the issue of the rights of the defence in a European area of justice in which, as is envisaged by the Council agreement on mutual assistance in judicial matters, there will be closer judicial cooperation in criminal matters?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(17 February 2000)
The Commission has run the Grotius programme since 1996 and has presented the information sought by the Honourable Member in two reports (1). C 280 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
The Commission aims to support projects in avenues related to the mandate of the programme (to improve judicial cooperation and mutual knowledge of the legal systems), including projects dealing with the defendant’s point of view, the victim’s point of view as well as the state’s view on judicial cooperation. As outlined in the reports, approximately 70 % of all the projects are organised by non-governmental authorities.
(1) First Report of the Commission to the Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Grotius, Sherlock, Stop and Oisin programmes (1996-1997) SEC(98) 1048 and the second report (1998) SEC(1999) 1955.
(2000/C 280 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2770/99 by Alima Boumediene-Thiery (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(10 January 2000)
Subject: Readmission clauses
At its meeting of 3 December the Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted by the procedure without debate (‘A’ items) a decision on readmission clauses in Community agreements or joint agreements. Under this decision, such clauses would in future be compulsorily included in all Community agreements and agreements between the EC, its Member States and third countries.
Can the Council give details of the scope of this decision, which was taken without consultation of the European Parliament?
Does the decision apply to agreements currently in force?
Does it concern all agreements of a commercial nature, including those with countries offering insufficient guarantees regarding respect for democracy and fundamental rights?
Are we to understand that all the countries with which the EC is negotiating or has already concluded agreements are regarded as safe?
How are the standard readmission clause and the obligations of the EU and its Member States under the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees to be reconciled, particularly as regards access to the asylum procedure and the principle of not turning away asylum seekers?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
1. The Council decision mentioned by the Honourable Member makes reference to the Council conclusions of 4 March 1996, in which the Council agreed that the insertion of standard readmission clauses in mixed agreements was to be considered on a case-by-case basis when adopting the directives for the negotiation of such agreements. The Council decision adapts these conclusions to the new situation arising from the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty. It was necessary to revise the standard clauses agreed in 1996 to take account of the fact that the European Community is now empowered to conclude readmission agreements with third countries. Under this decision, the revised standard clauses should in future be included in Community agreements and in association agreements or cooperation agreements between the European Community, its Member States and third countries. From the legal point of view, these are negotiating directives adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 300(1) TEC, which does not provide for consultation of the European Parliament.
These new directives are applicable as from adoption to current as well as future negotiations.
2. The clauses do not lay down any obligation to expel illegal migrants. They are only intended to commit the contracting parties to readmit own nationals and to conclude readmission agreements including obligations for the readmission of third-country nationals and stateless persons. As far as the expulsion of illegal migrants is concerned, it is the responsibility of each Member State to ensure that expulsions are carried out in accordance with its obligations arising from the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and other relevant treaties. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/127
(2000/C 280 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2780/99
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Price support measures for juicing oranges in Greece
Aid for juicing oranges has been reduced by 30 % because of the overshooting of the current processing threshold of 1 189 000 tonnes, set by the Commission for the 1999-2000 period, and it is expected that this reduction will lead to a further drop in producers’ incomes, since the prices fixed do not cover production costs, while in contracts which have been signed with the processors the trade price is also unusually low.
The 1 189 000-tonne threshold set for the imposition of penalties on orange production was calculated on the basis of years during which unusually low commercial quantities were produced, due to various circumstances, and it clearly does not correspond to actual production levels, as Parliament acknowledged in its sitting on 14 April 1999, when it suggested the threshold should be set at 1 665 000 tonnes. Does the Commission therefore intend to set a higher ceiling for processing oranges in order to reduce penalties and, primarily, to protect producers’ incomes?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(15 February 2000)
Citrus growers must derive their income from selling their fruit on both the fresh and the processing markets. The processing aid is complementary to that income.
The threshold for oranges set by the Council was calculated using the quantities processed in the past with Community aid.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 of 28 October 1996 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits (1) requires the Commission to submit a report on application of the processed citrus scheme to the Council accompanied by any appropriate proposals. It is in the context of this report that the Commission will examine the threshold level for oranges.
(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.
(2000/C 280 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2781/99
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Support measures for the marketing of oranges in Greece
It is expected that the large increase in orange production anticipated this year in Greece will create additional problems in finding market outlets for the product. The difficulty in exporting to central and eastern European countries, because of the bureaucratic and economic problems in certain countries and also because of the destruction of key roads due to the Yugoslavian war, is aggravating the market problem with the result that producers’ incomes are in danger of falling dramatically.
What measures does the Commission intend to take (subsidising transport costs, increasing the quantities supplied as food aid, particularly in the Balkans, etc.) in order to facilitate the disposal of produce? C 280 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(15 February 2000)
The Commission has recently extended their qualifying destinations for orange export subsidies. All countries outside the Community now qualify (Regulation (EC) No 67/2000 of 12 January 2000 fixing export refunds on fruit and vegetables (1)). This considerably simplifies the administrative procedures on payment on the refund.
Refund rate for lemons has been increased from EUR 35 to EUR 45 per tonne because of the current difficulties in exporting from the Community.
On surplus production the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s replies to his questions E-393/99 (2) and E-2327/99 (3).
(1) OJ L 9, 13.1.2000. (2) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999. (3) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 147.
(2000/C 280 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2787/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Community funding for the school of Sardinian language and culture in Quartu S. Elena
In the municipality of Quartu S. Elena, the most important school of Sardinian language in the region risks closure, because the funds expected from the Sardinian regional government and from the EU have not yet arrived: it is thus possible that the courses arranged for the 1999-2000 academic year, for which large numbers of students have already registered, will have to be cancelled. Quartu S. Elena, a pioneer in the official use of Sardinian (inter alia in the municipality’s official documents), could thus be forced to interrupt a cultural initiative which achieved remarkable success in 1998, with eleven courses and close on 300 participants. The objective of this school has been to enable all to understand, read and write Sardinian: the project took off with the arrival of regional funding under the Italian ‘Law 26’, together with ECU 20 000 from the EU and LIT 50 million from the municipality. This funding approximately LIT 150 million in all made it possible to set up operations with free classes for both adults and children.
The available funds have now been exhausted, and the municipality of Quartu S. Elena has launched an appeal to the EU and the Sardinian regional government, calling on them to ensure that funding is not cut off. After requesting funding for the project ‘Deu fueddu su sardu’, the municipal administration has also embarked on a cooperation scheme involving a Catalan-language school in Xebia (Valencian Community, Spain) and the University of Corsica, preparing a cycle of courses which should have begun already. Quartu S. Elena has also taken part in a international competition with the objective of safeguarding and promoting the European cultural heritage, made up as it is of over fifty language communities.
In view of the importance and seriousness of this educational and cultural project, dedicated to a regional minority language which is officially recognised by the European Bureau for Lesser-used Languages, does the Commission consider that immediate action is required to ensure funding for the activities of the school of Sardinian language and culture in Quartu S. Elena, thus enabling it to stay open?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(10 February 2000)
The learning and spread of minority languages help maintain the linguistic and cultural diversity of the European Union. The Community promotes the regional and minority languages of the Union by implementing the action ‘The promotion and safeguard of regional and minority languages and culture’, financed under budget heading B3-1000. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/129
The Sardinian language school in Quartu S. Elena benefited from Community funding to launch the project as a pilot project in 1998. The priority for Community funding and its necessary added value is to favour new initiatives which could not be run without funding from the Community action. When the project was resubmitted in 1999, it could only be put on the reserve list, as other projects were of better quality or greater priority, and unfortunately the budget limit meant that it could not be funded.
(2000/C 280 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2788/99
by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(7 January 2000)
Subject: Discrimination of the remote and peripheral regions of the EU assessing the research task ‘Climate variability and abrupt climate change’ of the EESD programme
Will the Commission give an assurance that within the assessment of research task 2.1.4 ‘Climate variability and abrupt climate change’ of the EESD programme it will try to ensure that remote and peripheral regions of the EU which lie outside direct human influence and are therefore crucial for the understanding of natural climate variability and where research may be expensive will not be discriminated against on grounds of cost?
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(11 February 2000)
As is the case for all the topics of the key action on global change, climate and biodiversity (including the research tasks ‘climate variability and abrupt climate change’) of the Energy, environmental and substain- able development) (EESD) specific research programme (1), the most important criterion for evaluation of research proposals is the scientific quality and relevance to the work programme. The Commission’s evaluation manual for proposals within the Fifth framework programme clearly states that the projects are selected based on quality, while ensuring equality of treatment and impartiality.
Obviously, sound and high quality climate variability research will continue to be supported subject to evaluators’ recommendations and the available budget. Several ongoing projects of the Fourth framework programme for Research and technological development (RTD) deal with research undertaken in ‘remote and peripheral’ regions of the Community and beyond e.g. Arctic and Antarctic.
(1) OJ L 64, 12.3.1999.
(2000/C 280 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2789/99
by Paul Coûteaux (UEN) to the Commission
(7 January 2000)
Subject: The directive on labelling and the sale of French-labelled products in France
The Advocate-General, Mr Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, believes that French legislation making it obligatory that food products in France be labelled in French infringes the European Directive on Labelling. C 280 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
According to Mr Colomer, an obligation to make exclusive use of the language of a linguistic region which, in this case, coincides with the territory of the Member State, is a barrier to trade. He further believes that the Court of Justice has already made it clear in previous rulings that a language easily understood by the consumer does not necessarily mean an official language or a regional language.
Does the Commission agree with Mr Colomer’s assessment?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(2 February 2000)
The Honourable Member is referring to the conclusions presented by the Advocate-General, Mr Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, on 25 November 1999 in case C 366/98 Public Ministry v Yannick Geffroy.
The Commission does not wish to comment in this answer on the analysis developed by the Advocate- General before the Court has even given a ruling on the matter in question.
The Commission has itself submitted written observations regarding the case.
The Commission has in particular informed the Court in its written observations that national rules may generally require the use of the national language provided that the requirement is not systematic and can be lifted if, where a particular indication must appear on the label, the adequate provision of information to the purchaser can be ensured by an indication in another language or by other means (such as a pictogram).
(2000/C 280 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2793/99 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Anti-xenophobia project
In my home region of Vorarlberg, Austria, a project is being planned under the title: ‘Love, war and adventure: tracing your roots!’.
Attitudes towards ‘foreigners’ in our society are in many ways influenced by fear. A way of countering these feelings is to trace the roots of the local population. The origins of the current inhabitants can be shown by the example of actual families.
The aim of the project is to show the many ways in which former ‘foreigners’ have contributed to the development of a community or town and to show how the descendants of former immigrants have quite naturally now become ‘indigenous’ people. Many families have ancestors who were immigrants or relations who emigrated abroad. Knowledge of their own family history should awaken people’s understanding and tolerance for today’s ‘foreigners’.
Has the Commission to date supported any similar projects?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(22 February 2000)
The Commission has already financed a plethora of measures to integrate immigrants and to combat racism and xenophobia, some of which concerned the contribution and the positive role of ethnic minorities in the Union. But it has not supported any projects like the one described by the Honourable Member. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/131
Since ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty, Community action in the field of racism has come under the more general framework of implementing the new Article 13 (ex Article 6a) of the EC Treaty, which concerns discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. In the context of preparing an action programme in this area, the Commission published calls for proposals in 1999, and will publish more in 2000, with an eye to funding projects in the context of transnational partnerships covering at least two of the types of discrimination mentioned in Article 13 of the EC Treaty, which are of interest to the Community and which can significantly contribute to the further development and implementation of Community policy in this field, within the limits set by the available resources.
(2000/C 280 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2794/99
by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Publication and dissemination of the whole package of EU Common Fisheries Policy measures on conservation of fisheries resources
There seems to be general uncertainty in Europe and worldwide concerning the diversity, seriousness and strictness of the package of scientific, technical, monitoring and management measures forming the various pillars of the CFP and aiming to safeguard and conserve fisheries resources in Community and extra-Community waters and the environment in general. In connection with many of these measures, the EU has rules on support and aid which are sometimes erroneously classified as subsidies leading to over- exploitation of fisheries resources.
Does the Commission not think that the Common Fisheries Policy would benefit from publication and wide distribution of an informative booklet outlining briefly but clearly and comprehensively all the detailed and sometimes complex measures which govern it, their fundamental objective being the conservation of fisheries resources and responsible fisheries practices in the EU?
Does the Commission not think that such a publication could be useful to spread awareness in Europe and worldwide of the important principles and agreements we have adopted on conservation of marine resources and the support measures associated with them, which sometimes tend to be confused with subsidies for overexploitation of fisheries resources?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(8 February 2000)
As part of its information and communication measures for the common fisheries policy (CFP), the Commission regularly produces and disseminates material explaining the various aspects of the policy.
This information is intended mainly for the fishing industry and other interested parties, in particular the specialised media, which represent one of the main sources of information for people working in the sector and the members of the public concerned. It is distributed in written publications, but also in audio- visual form and through the Internet.
Under the action plan for closer dialogue with the industry and the other groups affected by the CFP, presented recently to Parliament, the Commission is intending to extend the communication measures, principally by focusing the information better and by tailoring the explanatory material to the needs of the public it is addressing.
It is considered including in this material information files on the various strands of the CFP, of which measures for the conservation of fisheries resources are a principal component. These files will be covered also as part of a series of videos designed to explain in a clear way, including through the use of animated graphics, the fundamental pillars of the CFP. C 280 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Information will be disseminated regularly through a magazine for the fishing industry and other interested groups, which is to be published in the eleven official Community languages for distribution free of charge. The information will be available also, with links to fuller details, on the CFP website on the Europa server, which is currently undergoing expansion.
(2000/C 280 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2795/99
by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Aid to the European ship-building industry
In the European Parliament’s recent plenary debate on 19 November 1999 concerning the Commission’s statement on the ship-building industry, Members took the opportunity to denounce the dumping practised by countries such as Korea, who hamper fair competition in the shipbuilding sector worldwide, and to point out that aid must be maintained in Europe until world markets are stabilised.
According to certain reports, the Commission authorised State aids for ship-building in Italy on 16 November, more precisely for the creation of two new shipyards, one in Oristano (Sardinia) and the other in Belvedere Maríttimo (Calabria).
1. Can the Commission say whether this authorisation of European State aids is part of its global strategy to continue subsidising this important industry, which has such a great impact on social and regional issues in similar cases in other Member States?
2. Following the conclusions of the Council of Industry Ministers of 9 November, has the Commission devised any short-term global strategy for this very important sector and, if so, can it state what the contents of the strategy are?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(21 February 2000)
It should first be explained that the first of the two Italian cases to which the Honourable Member refers, relating to investment aid for the new shipyard at Oristano, was approved by the Commission under Article 6 of Council Directive 90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990, on aid to shipbuilding (1), which allowed investment aid for new capacity provided that this is offset by a corresponding irreversible reduction of capacity at other yards in the same Member State over the same period. In the Oristano case this capacity reduction was provided through the closure of the Clemna yard. In the second Italian case, involving the Belvedere yard, the Commission concluded that this new yard’s activities involving the construction of vessels of less than 100 gross registered ton (GRT) would not constitute shipbuilding as defined under the directive.
Council Directive 90/684/EEC has now been superseded by Council Regulation 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid for shipbuilding (2), which came into force on 1 January 1999. Under this Regulation, contract-related operating aid will be abolished at the end of the year 2000. However the Regulation also provides for a range of other aids that may be granted to shipbuilding subject to certain conditions up until 2003, including closure and restructuring aids, aids for research and development, aids for innovation, and regional investment aids for upgrading or modernising existing yards. In adopting this approach, the Council took the view that these aids would be more cost-effective in helping Community yards to improve their competitiveness than continued operating aid. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/133
In accordance with Article 12 of the Regulation, the Commission is keeping the market situation under regular review and will, if appropriate, propose measures to address the situation if it is found that Community yards are suffering injury from unfair competition practices. The Commission’s report to the 9 November 1999 Industry Council was the first such report.
The Commission considers that the various actions decided by the Council represent a balanced package of measures to tackle the problem of unfair competition. These are now being pursued and the Commission has now engaged Korea in bilateral dialogue with a view to halting injurious practices. At this stage there are no plans for other measures.
The Commission will continue to keep the market situation under review and evaluate all the information and evidence collected pursuant to the Council conclusions. It will submit its findings to the Council and to the Parliament as soon as necessary.
(1) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990. (2) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.
(2000/C 280 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2799/99 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(7 January 2000)
Subject: Treatment of Leonard Peltier
On Thursday, 11 February 1999 former EU Commissioner Brittan stated that ‘the Commission, through its delegation in Washington, is looking into the circumstances of the medical condition of Mr Peltier and will do its utmost to support the actions of the European Parliament in this regard. We will carefully follow up this case …’
Parliament subsequently adopted a resolution on the treatment of Mr Leonard Peltier (B4-0169/1999 (1)), in which it called for presidential executive clemency, appropriate medical treatment and an investigation into the judicial improprieties involved in Mr Peltier’s conviction.
1. Has the Commission’s office in Washington obtained information on Mr Peltier’s medical condition, as promised on 11 February 1999 by former Commissioner Brittan?
(a) If so, following the inquiries made by its office in Washington, what are the Commission’s conclusions concerning Mr Peltier?
(b) If not, why did the Washington office not make inquiries about Mr Peltier’s condition, as promised by former Commissioner Brittan?
2. On the basis of the information obtained from its Washington office, does the Commission feel that Mr Peltier should be moved to a hospital?
(a) If so, has the Commission asked the American authorities to move Mr Peltier to a hospital? If not, why not?
(b) If not, how does the Commission put across Parliament’s position, as contained in its resolution of 11 February 1999, to the American Congress, the President of the United States and the State Department? What were the responses to the requests for (a) the granting of presidential executive clemency, (b) appropriate medical treatment and (c) an investigation into the judicial improprieties involved in Mr Peltier’s conviction?
3. In what way, and when, did the Commission put across Parliament’s position, as contained in its resolution of 11 February 1999, to the American Congress, the President of the United States and the State Department? What were the responses to the requests for (a) the granting of presidential executive clemency, (b) appropriate medical treatment and (c) an investigation into the judicial improprieties involved in Mr Peltier’s conviction?
(1) OJ C 150, 28.5.1999, p. 384. C 280 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(3 February 2000)
Mr Leonard Peltier is a long term prisoner in the Federal Prison at Ford Levenworth, Kansas. An American citizen, he was extradited from Canada after his arrest in 1976 for the murder of two federal agents and has been in jail for nearly 24 years now. Mr Peltier is currently suffering from complications of maxilla- facial surgery in 1996, which cause serious problems in his jaw. In February 1999, the American authorities informed the Commission that Mr Peltier was being given normal medical treatment.
Mr Peltier does not possess the nationality of one of the Member States and for that reason, the Vienna Convention on consular relations does not apply. The treatment of prisoners in third countries varies, depending on the economic situation, legal systems, administrative rules and practices. International legal rules provide for minimum standards, such as the rule that no one shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Although some Member States did act on an individual basis on behalf of Mr Peltier, there is no Community policy in this respect. The Commission has limited competence to intervene in these cases.
(2000/C 280 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2802/99
by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Úbeda and Baeza: World Heritage
It is now ten years since the Spanish cities of Úbeda and Baeza (which are prime examples of Renaissance architecture in southern Spain) first sought to have their buildings classed as World Heritage by Unesco.
If their application is successful the two cities will receive substantial amounts of funding to help them conserve their architectural legacy and promote it as a tourist attraction.
Can the Commission say what contribution it has made towards ensuring that two such important treasures of the Renaissance can provide at least a minimum degree of conservation? How can it help to secure the above-mentioned Unesco classification, which would bring in the funding needed to maintain the wide range of outstanding buildings which are to be found in the two cities in question?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(21 February 2000)
As regards the cultural sector, the Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that, since the two cities of Ubeda and Baeza have never submitted a proposal under any Community programme, they have not received any financial support. The Commission can support cultural initiatives only in the framework of its existing programmes and in accordance with their criteria. Note that in February 2000 a call for proposals will be launched in the context of the First Framework Programme ‘Culture 2000’. Cultural operators who wish to obtain financial support will then be able to submit projects in accordance with the conditions and criteria of this Programme.
The Commission would recall that the designation of sites as part of the ‘heritage of humanity’ is a matter solely for the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco). 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/135
(2000/C 280 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2805/99 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: EQUAL Community initiative
Over the period 2000-2006 measures on new technologies and employment are to be covered by a single Community initiative, EQUAL, thus reducing the number of Community initiatives from 13 in the 1994-1999 budgetary period to 4 in the period 2000-2006.
EQUAL, a Community initiative which seeks to achieve transnational cooperation in the promotion of new ways of combating instances of discrimination and inequality relating to the labour market, has emerged as a result of past experience.
Can the Commission say how this initiative will be coordinated so as to cover all factors influencing the labour market, what its eligibility criteria will be, and how Member States should go about submitting proposals for a Community initiative programme?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(10 February 2000)
The proposal for a Communication on the Community initiative EQUAL (1) is currently being examined by the Parliament.
By creating development partnerships, EQUAL aims to involve public- and private-sector organisations, mainly at territorial level, which can provide innovative solutions to the problems which exist in the labour market.
The eligibility criteria will be laid down in the respective national operational programmes. However, the Commission intends to ensure the participation of small-scale promoters in the development partnerships which will be set up.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2), the Member States should present their proposals which should be developed in line with the guidelines adopted by the Commission. Each Member State will ensure, by means of concrete proposals in its operational programme, that these guidelines are applied to the reality of the national labour market and, in particular, that key employment issues are selected as priorities in the context of the initiative.
(1) COM(99) 476 final. (2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2000/C 280 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2808/99 by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: European legislation on labelling of LPG vehicles
Professional fire-fighters in France have reported that, in a fire, LPG-fuelled vehicles present greater dangers. France is now aware of the need to inform the public of the particular dangers inherent in this type of fuel. C 280 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
However, fire-fighters are now questioning the desirability of visible, external, permanent identification marks on LPG vehicles. Such labelling may have the unwanted effect of provoking acts of vandalism. Moreover identification marks, on licence plates for example, become invisible in a fire. Fire-fighters prefer a system of identification which is activated only in the event of fire and remains invisible until then.
Is there any European legislation on the need for these vehicles to be labelled?
If not, does the Commission consider that legislation should be introduced?
What is its view of this proposal for identification marks which are activated only in the event of fire?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(8 February 2000)
The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to the importance of protecting fire-fighters against the dangers posed by vehicles fuelled with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the event of a fire.
The Commission can confirm that Regulation 67 of the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Europe lays down conditions for the safety and installation of LPG equipment. Under the Regulation, a relief valve must be installed in the gas tank, which should remove the risk of explosion in the event of fire. The Community is considering whether to accede to the Regulation, which would mean its obligatory application by all the Member States. In that case, the Regulation would apply to the EC type-approval of new, LPG-fuelled vehicles. Certain Member States have anticipated this.
With regard to vehicles fuelled with LPG already in service, the Commission can only encourage the French authorities to look for a solution which would provide specific identification to protect fire-fighters in the event of an accident involving an LPG-fuelled vehicle. Moreover, the Commission would be prepared to support such initiative in the framework of Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999 establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection (1).
(1) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.
(2000/C 280 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2810/99
by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Protocol on improved protection and respect for the welfare of animals
In May 1999, the above, legally binding protocol entered into force. The protocol recognises that animals are sentient beings and requires that the Community take their welfare needs in particular areas fully into account.
1. What steps is the Commission taking to implement the protocol requirements?
2. Does the Commission intend to submit proposals on intensive pig farming, as required by Council Directive No 91/630 (1) which set a deadline of 1 October 1997?
3. Does it intend to propose a gradual abolition of gestation crates for pregnant sows, in view of the recommendations of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, according to which individual enclosures which do not allow the sow to turn round easily should be banned? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/137
4. Does it plan to propose a radical change in policy whereby trade in meat and carcasses would take the place of the long-distance transport of live farm animals?
In this regard, it should be noted that the protocol defines animals as sentient beings and not as goods. Clearly, therefore, live animals should no longer be subject to Community rules on free trade in goods.
(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 33.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(23 February 2000)
The Protocol in question recognises that animals are sentient beings and since its adoption the Com- mission has focused increasingly on accommodating the animal protection dimension in its policies. In the year 2000 it intends to present far-reaching proposals concerning animal welfare in the field of pig breeding and animal transport.
Notably, it will present a proposal concerning the protection of pigs in intensive rearing systems with a view to amending Council Directive 91/630/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs.
The Commission’s project may include provisions mandating the keeping of sows in groups and the establishment of distinct areas in which they can behave naturally.
The Commission may propose applying these measures as soon as possible in the case of future holdings. The time limit for imposing the rules on existing farms will be discussed by the experts, who will notably have to consider the socio-economic consequences.
Community legislation on animal protection during transport is based on the results of scientific research and practical experience, both of which indicate that, provided certain animal protection requirements are met, the transport of animals is feasible.
However, Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Directive 95/29/EEC of 29 June 1995 on the protection of animals during transport (1) needs to be reappraised on the basis of more recent information.
The Standing Veterinary Committee recently appointed a working party to study certain difficulties in applying this Directive.
It is possible that the Commission may draft an amendment to existing Community legislation during the year 2000 on the basis of the working party’s conclusions.
Besides, the Commission is preparing a project based on the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Welfare, laying down standards for the mechanical ventilation of animal transport vehicles. This proposal is scheduled for the first half of the year 2000.
(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
(2000/C 280 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2815/99 by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: The question of the Roma
1. In the context of enlargement the Commission is rightly giving priority to the question of better treatment of the Roma in a number of applicant countries. Would the Commission state precisely which problems need to be addressed? C 280 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
2. Does it have an overview of the measures that have been taken in these countries to improve the situation of the Roma minority? In what way is the EU involved in these?
3. The above question is not intended to refer only to improved legislation but also to measures aimed at an integrated approach; education, information and awareness-raising measures, etc. Does the Com- mission have any knowledge of measures of this kind?
4. Is there any question of exchanges between the countries concerned? Do cooperation projects between these countries exist? Is the expertise of EU Member States in this area being used in this connection?
5. Does the Commission have any facts about problems relating to Roma resident in the present EU Member States?
6. Has the Commission formulated precise objectives to be achieved by the applicant countries?
7. Is it also prepared to invest in problems to improve the situation of the Roma itself?
8. Is it working together with the Council of Europe?
9. Do the Roma play a role in relations with the Ukraine and Moldavia?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(7 February 2000)
1. Of the applicant countries currently in accession negotiations with the Community, there are Roma minorities in the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The most significant problems faced by the Roma population are discrimination, poor housing conditions and health standards, high levels of unemployment, low levels of education and segregation of Roma children within the school system.
2. and 3. In its composite paper of October 1999 (1), reporting on progress towards accession by the applicant countries, the Commission states that ‘while there have been encouraging developments in some of the candidate countries with the adoption of special programmes aimed at improving the situation of the Roma, a concerted effort is still required to ensure that these programmes are actually implemented’. The Commission closely monitors the initiatives by the applicant countries to improve the Roma situation and reviews in its regular reports the concrete progress made by each of the applicant countries.
4. The applicant countries as well as the Member States participate and exchange expertise in the Council of Europe’s Roma expert group and in other international fora dedicated to the Roma issue. The Commission is not aware of any current co-operation projects on Roma issues between the applicant countries.
5. The situation of Roma minorities in the Member States is monitored by the Council of Europe.
6. The Copenhagen criteria state that ‘Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing [inter alia] human rights and respect for and protection of minorities […]’. The situation of the Roma is therefore taken into consideration in assessing the capacity of applicant countries to become members of the Union. The accession partnerships for Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, adopted by the Council in December 1999 (2), stipulate concrete measures for the further integration of Roma as a short-term priority.
7. The Phare programme is the main channel of Community support for Roma populations in the applicant countries. In 1998, around € 3 million were committed under Phare to projects in support of the Roma communities in the five most concerned countries of central and eastern Europe. This figure reached € 10 million in 1999. In addition, the European initiative for democracy and human rights, which is also managed by the Commission, provides support to the Roma in the candidate countries notably through projects presented by non-governmental organisations. Projects for Roma are also supported within the Socrates and Youth for Europe programmes. The brochure ‘EU support for Roma communities in central 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/139
and eastern Europe’ is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament. Further details are available on the website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/enlargement/ index.htm.
8. The Commission participates in the Council of Europe’s Roma expert group, which meets bi- annually. In 1999, an agreement was signed with the Council of Europe in order to promote close co- operation between the European monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia and the Commission against racism and intolerance (ECRI) of the Council of Europe. In this context, joint programmes have been proposed on the situation of the Roma in Europe.
9. The situation of the Roma minority is taken into account in the relations with Ukraine and Moldova and the Commission has supported programmes aimed at improving the situation of the Roma population in these countries.
(1) COM(99) 500 final. (2) COM(99) 531 final, COM(99) 530 final, COM(99) 525 final, COM(99) 521 final.
(2000/C 280 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2824/99 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Transport of large quantities of dangerous waste from Hungary into EU countries
In the next few days 14 000 tonnes of waste and soil residues containing PCBs are due to be transported from Garé in Hungary into European Union countries for incineration although Hungary has sufficient facilities for the incineration and final storage of that waste.
1. Does the Commission know whether and to what extent Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1) on the supervision and control of cross-border shipment of waste has already been adopted and transposed into national law in the countries applying for accession, such as Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic (the latter two as transport corridors)?
2. Does the Commission know whether the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 relating to preventive environmental protection, public order, public safety and health protection and applicable to transport conditions, carriers and the authorities responsible for authorising such shipments of dangerous waste are actually being complied with?
3. Has the Commission exercised its supervisory powers in this respect, and if so, what was the outcome?
4. Does the Commission believe that the principle of proximity took precedence when the decision as to the place of incineration was taken to transport highly dangerous waste from Garé to distant EU countries?
If so, how does it justify this decision?
If not, what action is it taking to prevent any danger to the population and the environment?
(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(11 February 2000)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community does not apply as such to third countries. However, C 280 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
irrespective of future accession to the Community, both Hungary, the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic are parties to the Basel Convention on transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their safe disposal and are therefore bound by the control procedures of the Convention as outlined notably in its Articles 4 to 9.
For the area of the Community, Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 transposes the provisions of the Basel Convention. On the understanding that the shipment in question is an import of waste for disposal into the Community, Articles 19 and 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 are relevant. According to Article 19 (3), the export country, in this case Hungary, is required to present a duly motivated request to the authority of the importing Member State on the basis that it does not have and cannot reasonably acquire the technical capacity and the necessary facilities in order to dispose of the waste in an environmentally sound manner. Furthermore, import into the Community presupposes notification to the authority of destination, i.e. the Member State of import. According to Article 20 (6), the shipment may only be effected after the notifier has received authorisation from the authority of destination, i.e., the Member State in question. The authorisation may also be subject to transport conditions pursuant to Article 20 (5). The Commission does not dispose of any information which would indicate that the relevant procedures have not been respected for the imports in question.
The Commission as such does not exercise any control functions with regard to specific waste shipments under the Regulation. The supervision and control procedures established by the Regulation and directly applicable in the Member States are applied by the authorities designated by the Member States according to Article 36 of the Regulation.
As noted above, the need to take account of the proximity principle in the case of waste imports into the Community is reflected in Article 19 (3). This serves to transpose Article 4 (9) (a) of the Basel Convention which balances the objective of proximity in waste disposal with the need for waste disposal in an environmentally sound manner.
The Commission does not have sufficient information on the case in question to enable it to assess whether or not the disposal of the waste in question could have also taken place in Hungary in an environmentally sound manner.
(2000/C 280 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2827/99 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Looting and trafficking in cultural objects of value in Kosovo
Press reports claim that instances of the looting of monuments in Kosovo and trafficking in valuable objects stolen from them are constantly increasing in number, while no effort at all is being made to protect and save them. Archaeological monuments dating from Hellenic and Roman times, monasteries and churches containing priceless relics handed down through the centuries are now defenceless against marauding looters. No effort has yet been made to track down the perpetrators or to protect monuments from looting and there is, therefore, an immediate risk that priceless cultural objects will be destroyed or disappear.
Has the Commission taken any action to protect the monuments of Kosovo, which form part of the European cultural heritage, and what steps does it intend to take in the future to stamp out the trafficking in such objects?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(15 February 2000)
The Commission recognises the importance of the cultural heritage in Kosovo. In the context of its reconstruction programme in Kosovo (under the Obnova programme), activities in the cultural sector are 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/141
supported. Indeed, cultural activities are likely to be reinforced with the creation of the new Agency for reconstruction of which the mandate also covers the reinforcement of cultural institutions.
In July 1999, the Commission launched a damage assessment mission in Kosovo (carried out by the International management group), the terms of reference of which include the assessment of damage done to cultural sites. The final report which has not yet been issued, will provide valuable input for the future work of the Agency for reconstruction.
The combating of looting and trafficking of Kosovo’s treasures does not fall within the Commission’s mandate in Kosovo. Matters of security are rather the responsibility of KFOR (the Kosovo Force) and, to a certain extent of the United Nations interim administration in Kosovo (UNMIK). The extent to which the trafficking is due to looting which was carried out prior to the end of the conflict in June 1999, or whether this is a phenomenon since June 1999, is being examined.
(2000/C 280 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2829/99
by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Policy competences under the Treaty of Amsterdam
As guardian of the Treaties, and in view of the need to illustrate the principle of subsidiarity in practical terms, has the Commission at its disposal a detailed and comprehensible list of the various policy competences as set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, categorised according to the different powers enjoyed by the EU and Member States in each policy area? If not, why not? If such a policy exists, could the Commission make it available to the public?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(10 March 2000)
The Community institutions can exercise the powers conferred on them by the Treaty. Powers are conferred on the Community depending on the objectives to be attained, not according areas of activity. More specifically, according to Article 5 (former Article 3b) of the EC Treaty, the subsidiarity principle applies only in areas which do not fall within the exclusive powers of the Community. The Treaty neither defines the concept of exclusive powers, nor enumerates the areas it covers.
In its 1992 communication on the subsidiarity principle (1), the Commission sought to outline the areas of exclusive powers, while stressing that they evolve depending on progress in European integration.
In the Commission view this approach is still valid, even following adoption of the protocol on the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty.
The protocol sets out a dynamic view of subsidiarity. It means that Community action can be extended where circumstances require, within the limits, of course, of the objectives laid down in the Treaty. Conversely, it can be terminated when action is no longer justified.
Consequently, the Union’s powers are not set in stone. On the contrary, they are to be activated when required and no action should be taken when there is no justification for it.
(1) SEC(92) 1990 final. C 280 E/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2830/99 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission (18 January 2000)
Subject: Annual review of the implementation of the subsidiarity principle
As guardian of the Treaties, could the Commission provide a complete list of EU measures which have been eliminated or withdrawn as part of the Commission’s annual review of the implementation of the subsidiarity principle? Could the Commission describe how it intends to further improve the application of the subsidiarity principle in its work?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (22 February 2000)
As the Commission’s annual report to the Council on Better Lawmaking indicates (1), the Commission each year withdraws the proposals which have become obsolete, including for reasons of subsidiarity (in 1999 it withdrew 90 proposals). It proposes the simplification of a number of existing Community rules, largely in application of the proportionality principle. Since the 1992 Edinburgh European Council, the Com- mission has presented some 60 simplification proposals, 30 of which have been adopted by the legislative authority.
The Commission is also striving to improve the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles by strict application of the protocol annexed to the EC Treaty. Specifically, it proposes Community action only where this is necessary or more effective than action by the Member States; it uses alternatives to legislation and leaves scope for self-regulation, for example in the fields covered by the social protocol; it proposes measures which leave as broad as possible a decision-making margin at national level; it chooses as simple a form of action as possible; it is revising its system of evaluating the impact of proposals and strengthening the cost/benefit analysis of its initiatives; it has improved the arrangements for prior consultation of the parties concerned.
(1) ‘Better Lawmaking 1996’ CSF(96) 7, ‘Better Lawmaking 1997’ COM(97) 626 final and ‘Better Lawmaking 1998’, COM(98) 715 final and COM(1999) 526 final.
(2000/C 280 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2831/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission (18 January 2000)
Subject: Evaluations of the current research into climate change
What evaluations have been undertaken by or for the European Commission of the current state of the art concerning research into climate change in Europe, in the United States of America, and in other countries?
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission (11 February 2000)
The state-of-the-art of climate research on a global scale is evaluated on a periodic basis by the Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) of the United Nations (UN), where a majority of Community project coordinators are directly involved. In addition, a major conference (European climate science conference) was held in Vienna, under the Austrian Presidency in October 1998 at the end of the Fourth framework programme for RTD (FP4) to review the achievements and assess the state-of-the-art of Community funded climate research. The proceedings of this conference have been recently published as a CD-Rom (available from the Research and Technological Development Directorate general see also ‘Recent results of EC’s climate research’, Eds. Ghazi et al, the Research and Technological Development publication). Clearly, the European climate science community is playing a leading role in research on a worldwide basis. This fact was also confirmed by the reports of the Commission’s monitoring panel and the five year assessment panel. One of the improvements recommended is the streamlining of research towards policy objectives and is now being addressed in the Fifth framework programme (FP5). 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/143
(2000/C 280 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2832/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Gaps in research into climate change
What gaps in research into climate change have been identified by either the European Commission, or specialist advisers, or by the Advisory Committee set up to monitor the work of the Energy, Environment, and Sustainable Development research programme?
(2000/C 280 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2842/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Including research tasks 2.1.3 ‘Climate change prediction and scenarios’ in the Second Call for proposals
Can the Commission confirm that it has no immediate plans to include research task 2.1.3 ‘Climate change prediction and scenarios’ in the Second Call for proposals under the Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development research programme, and, if so, explain whether this is for administrative reasons, budgetary reasons, or because it believes that all necessary research in this field is now being undertaken?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2832/99 and E-2842/99 given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(14 February 2000)
The work programme of the first two calls has been meticulously designed and formulated in consultation with the expert advisory group and the programme management committee. Further discussions will be undertaken with these bodies in the light of the calls.
Mainly due to budgetary reasons, but also following the advice of the above mentioned bodies, the sub- theme 2.1.3 ‘Climate change prediction and scenarios’ was opened in the first call and is not included in the second call, but will be opened in the 2001 call.
(2000/C 280 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2833/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Strategic reasons for undertaking research on climate change
In which areas does the European Commission believe it is important to undertake research related to climate change for ‘strategic reasons’ for example, related to cooperation with the United States, or meeting the needs agreed in international research groups established within the framework of the United Nations programmes?
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(14 February 2000)
Strategically, and in the context of cooperation with the United States and Japan, several priority themes have been identified. These include climate prediction, carbon cycle and climate impacts research. Similarly, post-Kyoto research themes are being addressed as a priority. C 280 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2834/99
by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Approximate amounts of funding for research directly linked to climate change
What are the approximate amounts of funding for research directly linked to climate change allocated in the first, second, third, fourth and fifth Framework Programmes for Research and Development?
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(11 February 2000)
Approximately, the allocated budgets for climate research were ECU 17 million in FP1, ECU 40 million in FP2, ECU 90 million in FP3, ECU 150 million in FP4 and € 240 million in FP5.
(2000/C 280 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2836/99
by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Future of research on climate change
When does the Commission expect that research on climate change will no longer be needed, or could be limited to a few areas, and on what basis?
(2000/C 280 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2837/99
by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Areas of climate-related research in previous programmes no longer included
Are there areas of climate-related research which have been included in previous programmes which are no longer included, and if so which are these?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2836/99 and E-2837/99 given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(10 February 2000)
Research on climate change is a long-term approach since it involves basic understanding of the complex earth system, its evolution and change, prediction, detection and monitoring or documentation of changes. Given the non-linearity of earth system and the political significance of the issue it is desirable to continue Community support for an undetermined period of time. Priorities need to be set as is the case for the recent call. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/145
(2000/C 280 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2841/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Priority given to research tasks relating to the Arctic and polar regions
What research tasks relating to the Arctic and polar regions have been identified as matters of priority by European Commission officials, or their advisers?
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(10 February 2000)
Research tasks relating to polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic) are described in the work programme under the area 2.1.4 Climate variability and abrupt climate changes (e.g. hydrological cycle and its link to polar processes, quantification of its changes and its impacts on and interactions with cryosphere). In addition, research on stratospheric ozone and impacts in the Arctic remains an important research task (e.g. Theseo: Third European stratospheric experiment on ozone).
(2000/C 280 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2843/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Climate changes and variations on the mainland of the European continent
What priority if any will be given under research task 2.1.4. ‘Climate variability and abrupt climate change’ to understanding climate changes interacting with variations on the mainland (including moun- tains and lakes) of the European continent?
(2000/C 280 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2844/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: EU-supported research on climate change
Has the Commission undertaken any analysis of the extent to which EU-supported research onclimate change and its future impact has given attention to the main European continental land mass relevant to the majority of EU citizens?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2843/99 and E-2844/99 given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(14 February 2000)
The area ‘Climate variability and abrupt climate changes’ does include understanding of climate changes and its impacts on European land masses both in the past and the future. For instance, the hydrological cycle and its interactions and impacts with the geosphere-biosphere are important research tasks. C 280 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2845/99 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Restructuring of the European Community Humanitarian Office
The European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has seen various changes in its operational, political and administrative structure within the European Commission in recent years. Most recently, during the Commission’s last term of office, it was under the responsibility of the Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Fisheries. Now it has been added to the responsibilities of the Commissioner for Development and Cooperation. In any case, both spheres (development and cooperation and humanitarian aid), as far as Parliament is concerned, have always been the competence of the Committee on Development and Cooperation.
According to some sources it has been mooted that competence for the humanitarian aid provided by ECHO may be assigned to the EU’s High Representative for the common foreign and security policy (‘Mr CFSP’).
The current operational structuring, which adds ECHO to the responsibilities of the Commissioner for Cooperation and Development, Mr Nielsen, was the result of a considered decision designed to give both departments greater coherence and unity of action. Hence, it is worrying that after such a short time another change is already on the cards, although there is no justification for it as regards either political responsibilities or improved coordination and greater efficiency in the management of the budget.
Does the Commissioner for Development and Cooperation have any information on the subject?
What does he think about the possibility of further restructuring and what would be the justification for it?
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(22 February 2000)
The Commission has no knowledge of the sources referred to by the Honourable Member according to which there are plans for assigning responsibility for the humanitarian aid granted by the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) to the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy.
There has never been any question of handing over the management of humanitarian aid to the Council. As it indicated in its recent communication to the Council and Parliament (1), the Commission wishes to maintain and further improve the quality of the humanitarian aid which it provides through ECHO and has no plans for restructuring of the sort referred to by the Honourable Member.
The Commission is very conscious of the advantage of having brought the two portfolios Development cooperation and Humanitarian aid together under one Member of the Commission. It is envisaged that the communication on linking relief, rehabilitation and development planned for presentation in July 2000 will underline the advantage of a closer relationship between the two portfolios.
(1) COM(99) 468 final.
(2000/C 280 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2848/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands
Since 1 June 1994 there has been a requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands. The Ministry of Justice has published a brochure, ‘Alles over identificatieplicht’, containing information about what this entails. The publication is not only aimed at the general public but is also used, for example, by the Chamber of Commerce, social insurance authorities, employers, notaries etc. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/147
Page 12 of the brochure indicates what identity documents are permitted. The only non-Dutch document which is permitted is a non-Dutch passport. No distinction is made between EU citizens and non-EU citizens.
1. Does the Commission consider the brochure’s interpretation of Dutch legislation to be contrary to the relevant EU legislation, particularly that concerning free movement of persons and non-discrimination?
2. Dutch driving licences are recognised as identity documents, but not the driving licences of other Member States. Does this constitute discrimination?
3. Identity cards of EU Member States are not recognised but only passports, although the same identity cards are recognised as travel documents and the Netherlands recognises its own identity card. Does this constitute discrimination?
4. In a number of cases, a foreign passport alone is not sufficient: the passport must contain an indication that a residence permit has been issued. Does not this constitute discrimination?
5. What will the Commission do to change this situation?
6. If Dutch legislation accords with the Treaty on European Union but the brochure does not, can the Commission take steps to ensure that the brochure is altered, since in practice it is regarded as containing binding instructions?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(7 February 2000)
The Commission will contact the Dutch authorities to obtain full details of the circumstances to which the Honourable Member refers. If necessary, the Commission will certainly institute proceedings under Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
(2000/C 280 E/166) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2849/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Access to Social Insurance (Additional Categories of Persons) Decree
In the Netherlands, an amendment to the Access to Social Insurance (Additional Categories of Persons) Decree entered into force on 1 January (new Royal Decree 746). According to the decree, retired people who are in receipt of long-term benefit and reside in another EU Member State are no longer regarded as enjoying insurance cover. Many commentators consider that the decree may violate Regulation 1408/71 (1) and European case law.
1. The Netherlands Government does not agree, as witness the reply by State Secretary Hoogervorst to questions tabled by Mrs Verburg, Member of the Lower House of the Netherlands Parliament. The State Secretary invokes the judgment given by the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 June 1998 in case C-275/96, A. Kuusijärvi v. Riksförsäkringsverket, and the text of the Regulation as amended in 1991. Does the Commission agree with this reasoning? What might case C-275/96 have to do with the issue, as the undersigned feels that the link between case C-275/96 and the amendment in question is far from obvious?
2. If the Commission considers that the contentious amendment of the contentious decree seems to violate European measures, what will it do about this?
(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2. C 280 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(25 February 2000)
According to the information in the Commission’s possession, it is true that as from 1 January 2000 recipients of long-term social security benefits from the Netherlands (WAO, AOW) granted on the basis of previous occupational activity in that country are no longer regarded as being covered by statutory insurance there if they reside in another Member State. This change in the legislation means that compulsory contributions will no longer be levied and the persons concerned will no longer be entitled, for instance, to family benefits (AKW), survivor’s and orphan’s pensions (ANW), or to coverage of special medical costs (AWBZ). However, persons aged 65 or over will still have the right to take out voluntary ANW insurance in order to provide social security cover for their survivors.
The question is whether the change is compatible with Community law, in particular certain provisions of Council 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 families moving within the Community (1), as interpreted by the Court of Justice, for example in judgment C-275/96 (2) delivered on 11 June 1998 (Kuusijarvi case). The substance of this judgment is that Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 does not preclude the legislation of a Member State from making the right of a person who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory to remain subject to its legislation dependent on continued residence there. The Court also held that if such a person has transferred his residence to another Member State, where he lives with the members of his family, he loses the right to continue to receive family benefits paid under that legislation.
The Commission has received a large number of complaints from persons affected by this change in the Netherlands and has therefore requested further information from the Netherlands authorities so that it can form an opinion on this complex issue. The Commission is carefully examining the detailed reply that it has received from the Netherlands authorities.
(1) OJ L 28, 30.1.1997 (amending). (2) [ECR 1998 I-3419].
(2000/C 280 E/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2851/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Discrimination against EU citizens in implementation of the Netherlands Benefit Entitlement (Residence Status) Act
On 20 October 1998, the Commission replied to my question No E-2744/98 (1) about discrimination against EU citizens in implementation of the Netherlands Benefit Entitlement (Residence Status) Act. It said that it would seek information from the Dutch authorities about the scope of the Act and the relevant circular.
What was the outcome of the Commission’s inquiries? Does the Commission believe that the question of this legislation and its application to EU citizens has now been resolved in a non-discriminatory manner?
(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 132.
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(22 February 2000)
The Commission has contacted the Netherlands authorities. They confirm that Community nationals who are entitled to reside in the Netherlands in accordance with Community law as interpreted by the Court of Justice are treated on a par with Netherlands nationals. Notably, this means that there is no discrimination as regards the award of social security benefits or social advantages. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/149
The Netherlands authorities confirm that entitlement to these benefits and advantages is not conditional either on the possession of a residence permit or on enrolment with the communal registers (GBA).
The Netherlands authorities guarantee that the residence permit mentioned in the circular of 28 April 1998 referred to in Written Question E-2744/98 (1) by the Honourable Member is of a purely declaratory nature.
In these circumstances the Commission which incidentally has not received any recent complaints on this subject considers that the abovementioned instrument does not discriminate against Community nationals.
The Commission will carefully monitor the enforcement of the instrument in question.
(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999.
(2000/C 280 E/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2852/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Medical insurance in the European Union
In his answer of 22 January 3294/98 (1), Mr Flynn said that the Commission expected to give its conclusions once answers to supplementary questions had been received from the Dutch Government.
1. Now, almost a year later, has the Dutch Government provided answers to the supplementary questions?
2. If so, what conclusions does the Commission draw from the answer?
3. If not, when can an answer from the Dutch government be expected?
(1) OJ C 320, 6.11.1999, p. 40.
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(3 March 2000)
After examining the information provided by the Dutch authorities, the Commission concludes that private health insurance schemes existing in the Netherlands are not to be considered as statutory schemes within the scope of Council Regulation EC No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self- employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1).
(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, last amended by OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.
(2000/C 280 E/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2856/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: The Commission’s approach to employment policy
Dagens Nyheter of 8 December 1999 reported on an internal agreement between the Commissioner, Mrs Diamantopoulou and her Director-General Allan Larsson on the division of responsibilities between them for the Commission’s work on employment matters. There has been debate in Sweden on the extent to which the conflict between the Commissioner and the Director-General might be ascribed to their differing administrative backgrounds. Mr Larsson has now announced his departure from his present post this spring. C 280 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Are there any political differences between the Commissioner, Mrs Diamantopoulou and the Director- General, Mr Larsson over the Commission’s approach to employment policy?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(17 February 2000)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question P-2670/99 by Mr Hernandez Mollar (1).
There are no political differences between the Member in charge of Employment and social affairs and the Director general of the Employment and social affairs Directorate general over the Commission’s approach to employment policy.
(1) See page 100.
(2000/C 280 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2857/99 by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Council
(19 January 2000)
Subject: World Conference on Education for All 1990
At the World Conference on Education for All in 1990, European Union governments committed themselves to universal primary education by 2000. It has been estimated that around 130 million children in the developing world still receive no primary education.
Is the Council still committed to universal primary education? If so, what is being done to fulfil the commitment?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
The commitment to which the Honourable Member refers was made at an intergovernmental world conference.
The Community institutions, and the Council in particular, therefore do not fall within that framework.
The question raised by the Honourable Member consequently lies outwith the Council’s sphere of competence.
(2000/C 280 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/99 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Discrimination among pigeon fanciers in the border region between the Netherlands and Belgium
It used to be possible for pigeon fanciers from the Netherlands to join an association in Belgium. However, a few years ago this possibility was abolished, precisely at a time when Europe is becoming increasingly united. The ban was imposed by the Belgian Pigeon Fanciers’ Federation, and is felt by residents of the border region to be inconvenient. Pigeon fanciers wish to be able to compete with one another irrespective of their place of residence, as they used to in the past. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/151
According to information from the Commission, pigeon races are organised through pigeon fanciers’ associations, and it depends on a pigeon fancier’s place of residence whether he can join one of these in a region of Belgium or in the Netherlands. According to the Commission, the residence criterion for membership of a pigeon fanciers’ association is intended to take account of the distances which pigeons are required to fly during a competition.
We dispute this residence criterion. The border region is a single region. The distance which pigeons have to fly is virtually the same if they are released, for example, from De Clinge in the Netherlands or De Klinge in Belgium. We therefore wish pigeon fanciers who are resident in the Netherlands to be allowed to join pigeon fanciers’ associations in Belgium and vice versa.
Will the Commission take the necessary measures to secure a lifting of the current ban? If so, how?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(29 February 2000)
According to the information available to the Commission and to the Honourable Member, the residence criterion for membership of a pigeon fanciers’ association is laid down by both the Belgian Pigeon Fanciers’ Federation and the Dutch Pigeon Fanciers’ Federation.
In this context, and regardless of whether the criterion is compatible or not with the principle of the freedom to provide services laid down in Article 49 (ex-Article 59) of the EC Treaty (assuming that we are dealing here with an economic activity), this situation does not seem to be attributable to the public authorities of these two Member States.
The direct effect of Article 49 of the EC Treaty is that individuals can invoke it in national courts against the Member State and the public authorities to prevent the application of a national regulation which is contrary to the above principle. They can also invoke it against organisations which collectively regulate a professional sector, which could include a federation which regulates an economic activity.
On the other hand, the Commission can institute proceedings under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty only in respect of regulations laid down by the public authorities of a Member State. From a formal point of view, therefore, the Commission does not have the power to respond to the Honourable Member’s request.
(2000/C 280 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2868/99
by Marco Pannella (TDI) to the Council
(10 January 2000)
Subject: The cases of Mrs Flora Brovina, Mr Albin Kurti and Mr Ukshin Hoti
Mrs Flora Brovina, a paediatrician and intellectual from Pristina, was arrested by the Belgrade authorities for providing Kosovars with medical and food aid during the war. She was also accused of preparing terrorist acts. She was initially detained in Lipljan prison in Kosovo, where she was repeatedly tortured, and was then transferred to Serbia. During visits, she was not allowed to speak Albanian. She has a heart condition and has difficulty in obtaining the necessary medicines. On 9 December 1999 Mrs Brovina was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for ‘activities against the State’.
Mr Albin Kurti, a former representative of the Pristina Students Union, was brutally arrested on 28 April 1999 and is held in Pozarevac prison in Serbia. He is also accused of ‘activities against the State’ and ‘links with a terrorist organisation’. Since he was deported to Serbia, the Serbian authorities have refused to provide any information about him. C 280 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Mr Ukshin Hoti, a university lecturer and leading Kosovar figure who was nominated for the EP’s Sakharov Prize in 1998, was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in 1994. Although his prison sentence came to an end last May, he is still missing. According to two concurrent testimonies, he was released from Lipljan prison on 16 May 1999. However, his family have not received any official notification from the Belgrade authorities. He may subsequently have been abducted and taken to Serbia.
Does the Council have more detailed information on the above cases?
What action has the Council taken, in particular at the United Nations and OSCE levels, with a view to the speedy release of some 2000 Kosovar prisoners still held in Serbian prisons, and to obtaining all the necessary information on the persons who have disappeared?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
The Council fully shares the Honourable Parliamentarian’s concern over of the fate of the Kosovar prisoners still held in Serbia and notably in the cases of Mrs Flora Brovina, Mr Albin Kurti and Mr Ukshin Hoti. On the occasion of the 19 July 1999 General Affairs Council, Ministers called on the FRY to guarantee the ICRC full access to these prisoners. The Council also called for the immediate release of prisoners held without charges and to treat prisoners in accordance with applicable international standards.
After the 19 July GAC, the ICRC has been allowed access to Serbian jails by the Belgrade authorities. It has so far identified 2000 Kosovo Albanian prisoners and might be in possession of updated information on the whereabouts and the conditions of the prisoners mentioned by the Honourable Parliamentarian.
The Honourable Parliamentarian can be 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 prisoners as the key element for an eventual lifting of sanctions targeting the Belgrade regime.
(2000/C 280 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2869/99 by Frédérique Ries (ELDR) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Cost of sending letters from and within Belgium
A few months ago, a person wishing to send a standard-format letter from Belgium to France paid 17 francs, the same as for a letter within Belgium.
Now, however, the cost of sending a standard-format letter from Belgium to France has increased to 19 francs for a second-class letter and to 21 francs for a first-class letter. The cost of sending a letter within Belgium is still 17 francs.
Does not the Commission feel that a competition issue is involved here, since it is more expensive to send a letter within the Union than within a Member State?
Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(25 February 2000)
Since 1 January 1999 the Belgian post office has in fact had different rates for domestic mail and for mail going to other Member States.
The postal services directive (1) requires prices to be geared to costs. This principle can thus prompt a postal authority to alter its rates in line with costs, especially when these differ between purely domestic handling and cross-border mail. When approached, the Belgian post office offered this reason to justify the rate alterations, especially in the light of its recent investments to improve the quality of cross-border mail services. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/153
This transparency is intended to avoid subsidies, but it also reflects a definite feature of the single market. In ten or so Member States postal rates differ depending on whether the mail is to be delivered domestically or elsewhere in the Community.
The differing rates for domestic and intra-Community mail may be based on different types of service. If these are justified, they would not infringe Community rules on competition. Compliance with the cost accounting principles laid down in the postal services directive will allow such justifications to be examined, if need be.
(1) 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, OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 12.
(2000/C 280 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0004/00
by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(19 January 2000)
Subject: Cobalt and nickel used in dentistry
Scientific research shows that more and more people are sensitive to heavy metals such as cobalt and nickel. Cars, industry and modern farming are some of the causes of the increasing number of heavy metals in food. Recent research in France has shown a link between heavy metals (nickel, copper, cobalt and aluminium, along with sulphate) in drinking water and Alzheimer’s disease. Since the human body needs only a small amount of these metals, the remainder is stored and this results in allergies.
Cobalt and nickel are frequently used in dentistry. Hypersensitive patients suffer as a result. From the public health point of view, it would be better to use ‘healthier’ alternatives such as covering dentures with a complete non-corroding, wear-resistant coating. All too many dentists and laboratories argue that a coating is not necessary because there is no obligation. Nevertheless, directive 92/59/EEC (1) bans the use of products which are ‘dangerous to the health and safety of consumers’.
1. Has the Commission had any scientific research carried out into the increasing sensitivity to cobalt and nickel, in particular when they are used in dentistry? If so, what are the findings of this research? If not, is the Commission prepared to have such research carried out in view of the adverse effects on public health?
2. Is the Commission prepared to make use of cobalt and nickel in dentistry dependent on the obligatory covering of dentures with a complete non-corroding, wear-resistant coating, in view of the adverse effects on public health and the European ban on products which are ‘dangerous to the health and safety of consumers’ (directive 92/59/EEC)? If not, what is the Commission’s justification for the continued use of cobalt and nickel in dentistry without covering dentures with a complete non-corroding, wear- resistant coating?
(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 24.
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(16 March 2000)
1. The Commission ordered in December 1994 a study on dental amalgam and alternatives, products covered by the medical devices Directive 93/42/EEC (1), and which was performed by an ad hoc working group. Members included experts representing Member States’ ministries of health, scientists from different European universities, industry representatives, medical professionals, dentists’ professional associations and two experts from the United States department of Health and Human Services. C 280 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
The study, aimed at assessing the potential risks that might put into jeopardy a high level of health protection for patients and consumers, focused on dental amalgam, composite resins, coating and on the biocompatibility and toxicological aspects of a number of alloys used in dentistry, in particular those based on nickel, palladium, silver, gold, cobalt.
The main conclusions of the report indicate that all dental restorative materials, including dental amalgam as well as its alternatives, i.e. alloys or resins, have the potential to cause some adverse reactions. The casting alloys have the potential to cause allergy. It is believed that dental casting alloys, whilst eliciting reactions in sensitised individuals, do not generally induce sensitisation. Allergic reactions to metal alloys, however, are rarely reported. Problems are usually resolved following the removal of the material. The prevalence of adverse effects related to dental restorative materials and patients is generally low. Available data is sparse; literature overviews and research articles indicate this to be less than 0,1 % of the general population. The risk-benefit ratio corresponds to the currently acknowledged and accepted state of the art.
The standards that support Directive 93/42/EEC represent the current state of the art. The Commission therefore considers that this Directive provides an appropriate legal framework for dental restorative materials, and that no modification of this legislation is needed at this stage. Nevertheless, the Commission will closely follow the development of scientific knowledge in this area and draw appropriate conclusions as concerns Directive 93/42/EEC.
2. Directive 92/59/EEC, on general product safety, defines in its article 2 a) ‘safe product’ as ‘any product which … does not present any risk or only the minimum risks compatible with the product’s use, considered as acceptable and consistent with a high level of protection for the safety and health’. At this stage the scientific data available do not permit the conclusion that the use in dentistry of cobalt and nickel is incompatible with the definition of safe product of the Directive, taking also into account the benefits of such use. Therefore, the Commission does not plan action at this stage concerning the use of cobalt or nickel alloys without coating. However, the Commission will carefully follow the development of the scientific knowledge in this area.
(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.
(2000/C 280 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0007/00
by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission
(19 January 2000)
Subject: Measures to combat drugs in the Region of Lazio
In its Decision No 5057 of 5 October 1999 the Region of Lazio laid down the criteria for allocating funding to combat drugs. The decision sets strict conditions for policies in the sector, especially at local authority level, obliging such authorities to comply with the provisions established by the regional government. Instead of laying down the criteria and terms for the submission of applications for funding, leaving scope for public and private projects (as intended in Law No 45/99), the decision specifies in detail both the content and form of measures, all of which are aimed at ‘damage limitation’. All of this happens without in any way involving the local authorities (as specified by the law), which are by their very nature closer to the territory involved. This has prompted some of them, for example the local authority of Latina, to lodge an appeal with the Administrative Court of Lazio. The Decision inhibits prevention measures, since according to its terms only projects targeting individuals at risk are eligible for funding, whereas there should be more scope for prevention, as envisaged in the law and in many Community decisions. The decision does not make provision for curing addicts. Since funding is envisaged for returning addicts to work and the concept of rehabilitation is replaced by damage limitation, the implication is that in the Region of Lazio the people who are to be found jobs are those who still use drugs, rather than those who have been cured, which is tantamount to legalising drugs. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/155
In view of the above, can the Commission say:
1. whether it does not consider that the Regional decree is clearly in conflict with Community decisions, which indicate that the priority for the Member States should be prevention and cure;
2. whether it does not consider that the decision is in conflict with the principles of subsidiarity underpinning the European Union, which would entail the involvement of the local authorities most immediately concerned, possibly with the assistance of non-profit making associations and organisa- tions;
3. whether there is any documentation drawn up by the Commission or the Drugs Monitoring Centre in Lisbon on examples of good practice in the fight against drugs?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(17 February 2000)
Since 1995 the Commission has emphasised that effective action to combat drugs required a comprehen- sive and integrated approach. This does not mean that everyone must fight on all fronts and at all levels at the same time. It means that co-ordination and interaction of players and approaches must be ensured to reach maximum efficiency.
The Commission would reply to the three specific points underlined by the Honourable Member as follows:
1. In the Commission’s communication on a European Union action plan to combat drugs (2000-2004) (1) a comprehensive approach is considered to be the best strategy to meet future problems. Such an approach should cover all areas of drug abuse prevention, from discouraging the initial use to reducing the negative health and social consequences of drug abuse. This approach should indeed be grounded in a comprehensive strategy that can be used to drive the cost-effective allocation of resources.
2. In areas like drug issues, which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, shall take action only if and insofar as the objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States. On this basis the Commission could not intervene in decisions taken on a regional or local level.
3. The European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction (EMCDDA) publishes an annual report on the state of the drugs problem in the Community which gives an up-to-date picture of trends and patterns in drug use in Europe. Information on evaluated European drug demand reduction projects is also available on the Internet, through the web site of the (http://www.emcdda.org/). This offers a valuable tool for learning from experience of similar kinds of projects elsewhere in the Community.
(1) COM(99) 239 final.
(2000/C 280 E/176) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0009/00 by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 January 2000)
Subject: Disaster in Venezuela
Shortly before Christmas, continuous rainfall (the heaviest in living memory) caused flooding in Venezuela, the effects of which constitute what is perhaps the greatest natural disaster to have occurred in recent years. It is feared that over 30 000 people may have died, whilst the number of homeless is estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands. Whole conurbations disappeared under a sea of mud and have become mass graves. Infrastructures (basic sanitation, drinking water, communications, healthcare and schools) have been almost entirely swept away and economic activity is at a standstill. C 280 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
In response to this enormous tragedy, European support for Venezuela a country which has taken in hundreds of thousands of European immigrants (Portuguese, Italians and Spaniards) who are also seriously affected needs to be extensive as well as urgent.
The amount of the aid which has so far been announced (3,2 million euros to be channelled through the Spanish, French and German Red Cross organisations) is clearly inadequate and can at best be regarded as an initial injection of emergency humanitarian aid.
The Commission is therefore called upon to increase without delay the level of European support for Venezuela and to answer the following questions:
1. What type of action does the Commission intend to take in order to meet the countless needs stemming from the disaster in areas such as medical and psychiatric assistance, water and public health, the rebuilding of dwellings and infrastructure items, food supply and the resumption of economic activity?
2. How much funding will be provided to finance the planned action and when will the amount be announced?
3. What are the conclusions of the survey carried out locally by ECHO officials?
4. Why has the Portuguese Red Cross not been involved in the channelling of the aid? Is the Commission intending to ask for its help in the future?
5. As in the case of the Central American countries which were devastated by Hurricane Mitch, does the Commission intend to prepare a medium- and long-term action plan (some of the disaster regions will need approximately ten years to recover) to rescue the areas affected?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(2 February 2000)
The Community is assuming its role, as it has done following other natural disasters that have affected Latin America recently.
The Commission immediately mobilised emergency aid, so far amounting to € 3,6 million, through its humanitarian office (ECHO), and intends to continue its support with an additional amount of € 2 million of humanitarian assistance to help restore the availability of drinking water, epidemiological surveillance activities and psychological support to children. Once there is a clear picture of the government plans for reconstruction, short-term rehabilitation works will be carried out, in order to help those affected regain a minimum of self-sufficiency.
The ECHO correspondent reports that, after an initial period of chaos, different sectors (government, private sector and international community) are co-ordinating their efforts. Nevertheless, the need for international assistance persists, especially in the fields of water and sanitation, epidemic surveillance and logistic support. The needs for rehabilitation and reconstruction are huge, but they have not been evaluated yet.
An expert mission is being prepared to carry out an evaluation and to identify specific actions. At this stage, it is not possible to provide the exact amount of money planned for this action, as it will depend very much on the findings of the expert mission, and on the sharing of the burden of the reconstruction effort with other donors.
In the absence of a detailed assessment of the needs it would be premature to enter into details of the Commission’s support for the reconstruction of Venezuela. Contacts with other donors need to be strengthened in order to promote a co-ordinated effort of the international community and a clear definition of the priorities for action.
The Portuguese Red Cross has not applied for funding to the Community. It is understoud that this humanitarian organisation is not present, for the time being, in Venezuela. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/157
(2000/C 280 E/177) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0010/00
by Ole Krarup (EDD) to the Council
(20 January 2000)
Subject: Taxation of savings income of EU staff
Should the Council finally adopt the proposal to tax savings income in accordance with the Helsinki Summit’s conclusions concerning the tax package (paragraph 34), would it also apply to staff in the EU institutions?
Reply
(28 March 2000)
Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities only exempts from national taxes ‘salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Communities’. Accordingly, if an official were to receive savings income falling within the terms of the proposals such income would be chargeable to tax in the normal way in accordance with the tax laws in force in the Member State in which the official is deemed to have his or her fiscal domicile in accordance with Article 14 of the Protocol. Such tax law would of course include the provisions of the directive on the taxation of savings if and when it is adopted.
(2000/C 280 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0012/00
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(19 January 2000)
Subject: Implementation of the ‘television without frontiers’ directive
Directive 97/36/EC (1), ‘Television without frontiers’, which came into force on 3 July 1997, includes rules on teleshopping, the protection of minors and advertising. Since it has not yet been incorporated into Greek law, there are no rules on teleshopping, consumers receive no protection from advertising of all sorts and its provisions on the protection of minors are not being applied.
What measures does the Commission intend to take with a view to the incorporation of the directive into Greek law, the protection of television viewers, and, especially, the safeguarding of children from unsuitable programmes?
(1) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(28 February 2000)
The Commission has recently decided to refer to the Court of Justice the fact that Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities has not yet been fully incorporated into Greek law. C 280 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0014/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(19 January 2000)
Subject: Breach of Directive 89/391/EEC on the improvement of health and safety of workers
Following complaints to the responsible Greek and Community bodies from the Works Council of Andersen (Consulting) B.P.M. Hellas S.A. in Greece that the company was in breach of the basic provisions of Framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1), the competent Greek authorities carried out an investigation which established that such breaches had occurred.
In view of the fact that the company has failed to resolve the problems and that no review has been carried out, as requested by the Works Council, will the Commission say what measures it will take to ensure effective monitoring and compliance with the provisions of the Directive in order to protect the health and safety of workers employed by the company concerned?
(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(1 March 2000)
In accordance with Article 4 of the Council Framework Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989, on the introduction of measures to improve the safety and health of workers at work (1), it is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure adequate control and supervision of the national provisions implemented by this directive. Consequently, any possible breach of the provisions of Directive 89/391/EEC must be brought to the attention of the Greek authorities.
In this particular case these authorities must be informed once again by the parties concerned if the health and safety conditions at work are not remedied in the company in question.
The Commission would not hesitate to take necessary action if it was given reliable information that the Greek authorities were not monitoring the implementation of the provisions of Directive 89/391/EEC.
(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
(2000/C 280 E/180) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0016/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission
(19 January 2000)
Subject: News concerning the rules on state aid to undertakings in deprived urban areas
With reference to OJ Notice No 97/C 146/08 and to my previous question P-3945/97 (1), can the Commission say:
1. which European countries have taken advantage of the above regulation to grant aid to undertakings in deprived urban areas?
2. whether there are any surveys or reports on this matter?
3. whether there any examples of good practice in this regard?
(1) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 99. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/159
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(23 February 2000)
Only France has so far granted aid under the Guidelines on State aid for undertakings in deprived urban areas (1).
With regard to the other questions, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to her written questions P-2628/97 (2), P-3945/97 (3) and E-173/99 (4). The Guidelines in question lay down the criteria on the basis of which the Commission examines whether State aid to deprived urban areas is compatible with the common market, but they do not require Member States to grant such aid.
The fact that these Guidelines have been applied to only a limited extent means that it is not at present possible to draw up a report or produce a list of good practices.
(1) OJ C 146, 14.5.1997. (2) OJ C 82, 17.3.1998. (3) OJ C 18, 16.6.1998. (4) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999.
(2000/C 280 E/181) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0020/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Council
(20 January 2000)
Subject: The outermost regions and the allocation of structural funds
The programming of structural funds in the Autonomous Region of the Azores for the period 1994 to 1999 envisaged structural support worth PTE 149 200 075 million or EUR 744 207 million, equivalent to EUR 124 034 million per year, according to the latest rescheduling in 1999.
Although it already reflects the upward adjustment resulting from the relevant deflator, the amount is still quoted at current prices, since it is difficult to update it to 1999 prices.
In a letter to the Portuguese authorities dated 1 July 1999 the Commission proposed an indicative allocation of EUR 757 million for the Autonomous Region of the Azores for the period 2000 to 2006, equivalent to EUR 108 million per year.
This represents a substantial reduction, much more than the apparent reduction of EUR 16 million, in that the value for 1994-1999 has not been updated for 1999 and does not take account of the rise in revenue in both the Azores and the Community.
This Commission proposal blatantly contradicts all the promises and statements made by the Commission with regard to the outermost regions, in particular:
1. that the resources would be concentrated in the poorest regions;
2. that these regions would receive more amounts per year;
3. that the outermost regions in particular would benefit.
Apparently insensitive to the reality of numbers, the Commission continues to claim that the reform of the structural funds has brought more resources to all the outermost regions.
Does the Council not consider it necessary to carry out a thorough review of the impact of the reform of Community policies in the poorest and most isolated regions, such as the Autonomous Region of the Azores, in particular in the context of the application of Article 299(2) of the Treaty? C 280 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Reply
(28 March 2000)
1. The Council is aware of the problems arising from the special situation of the outermost regions and has always attached great importance to the instruments designed to reduce the structural handicaps stemming from their remote location.
2. The Structural Funds are an important instrument for action, having a positive impact on growth, convergence and the upgrading of infrastructures especially port and airport infrastructures in the outermost regions.
By virtue of the new regulatory framework for the Structural Funds, the Commission, in agreement with the Member States concerned, is considering adopting the Community support frameworks over the next six months containing the strategy and priorities for the action of the Funds and of the Member State concerned, their specific objectives, the financial contribution by the Funds and the other financial resources.
In any event, it is not for the Council to intervene in the process of setting up the Community Support Framework or to comment on the policies and choices of the Member States and of the Commission.
3. More specifically as regards the implementation of Article 299(2) of the Treaty, the Council can only act on a proposal from the Commission. The Council is not as yet in receipt of a Commission proposal along the lines mentioned by the Honourable Member.
(2000/C 280 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0023/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 January 2000)
Subject: Leader +
In the draft communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for the Community initiative for rural development (Leader +), the Commission made provision for up to 50 % participation at the decision-making level within the local action groups by partners that are elected office- holders. It has emerged following discussion of the communication at the STAR management committee that an amendment has been adopted which stipulates a minimum participation by economic and social bodies of 50 % at the decision-making level.
What view does the Commission take of this provision? Does it consider it to be more flexible or more restrictive towards elected office-holders? Does the Commission perhaps have certain reasons for aiming at some kind of elimination of local government, and if so, could it state them?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(4 February 2000)
The implications for local representatives of the amended provision referred to by the Honourable Member are no different from the Commission’s original proposal, which it is intended simply to clarify.
The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that this provision is in no way designed to exclude local representatives and authorities from local action groups (LAGs). The Commission’s objective is to ensure that participation by the public sector as a whole, including elected representatives, in decision making does not exceed the 50 % limit to enable the private sector to develop its own initiatives, given the bottom-up approach of Leader+ and in particular its aim of stimulating socio-economic operators to come up with ideas and become actively involved in the future of their regions. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/161
(2000/C 280 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0027/00
by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) and Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(19 January 2000)
Subject: Human rights in Turkey
The world has become no more peaceful in the post-Cold War period. Despite the appearance of new actors on the scene, states are still responsible for the great majority of instances of torture. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture in London has for a number of years been taking care of victims of torture and (military) violence.
By far the largest group of patients of the Foundation are from Turkish Kurdistan. The Foundation’s Alex Sklan described Turkey in De Morgen of Friday, 24 December 1999 as a ‘torture state’. ‘Torture is endemic, routine, inherent in the enforcement of so-called law and order’.
1. Is the Commission aware of the activities of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture in London with regard to the victims of torture and violence? If not, will the Commission seek full information on the Foundation given its importance in the light of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the enlargement of the European Union? If it is aware of the Foundation’s activities, can the Commission confirm the statement by Mr Sklan that: ‘By far the largest group of patients of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are from Turkish Kurdistan’?
2. Does the Commission feel that the term ‘torture state’ used by Mr Sklan is applicable to Turkey? If not, does the Commission believe that a member of a body specialising in victims of torture and (military) violence is wrong to apply the term ‘torture state’ to Turkey? If so, how does the Commission explain the statement by Mr Alex Sklan that: ‘By far the largest group of patients of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are from Turkish Kurdistan’?
3. Does the Commission endorse Mr Sklan’s view that ‘Torture is endemic, routine, inherent in the enforcement of so-called law and order’ in Turkey’? If not, why not, and how can the Commission’s position be reconciled with the fact that, as Mr Sklan says: ‘By far the largest group of patients of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are from Turkish Kurdistan’?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(23 February 2000)
The Commission is in regular contact with a wide range of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and finances a number of their activities through assistance programmes. It has made financial contributions to several projects run by the Foundation to which the Honourable Member referred.
As far as Turkey is concerned, the Commission has been analysing the situation there each year since November 1998 through its regular report, in the light of the Copenhagen criteria. In its most recent report, published in October 1999 (1), it indicated that ‘there are serious shortcomings in terms of human rights and the protection of minorities. Torture is not systematic but is still widespread […]’. Since 1993, the Commission has financed various rehabilitation centres for the victims of torture in the framework of the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights programme.
The Commission considers that the pre-accession strategy for Turkey adopted at the European Council meeting in Helsinki will encourage and support the democratisation process there.
(1) COM(99) 514 final. C 280 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0028/00
by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) and Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(20 January 2000)
Subject: Human rights in Turkey
The world has become no more peaceful in the post-Cold War period. Despite the appearance of new actors on the scene, states are still responsible for the great majority of instances of torture. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture in London has for a number of years been taking care of victims of torture and (military) violence.
By far the largest group of patients of the Foundation are from Turkish Kurdistan. The Foundation’s Alex Sklan described Turkey in De Morgen of Friday, 24 December 1999 as a ‘torture state’. ‘Torture is endemic, routine, inherent in the enforcement of so-called law and order’.
1. Is the Council aware of the activities of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture in London with regard to the victims of torture and violence? If not, will the Council seek full information on the Foundation given its importance in the light of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the enlargement of the European Union? If it is aware of trhe Foundation’s activities, can the Council confirm the statement by Mr Sklan that ‘By far the largest group of patients of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are from Turkish Kurdistan’?
2. Does the Council feel that the term ‘torture state’ used by Mr Sklan is applicable to Turkey? If not, does the Council belief that a member of a body specialising in victims of torture and (military) violence is wrong to apply the term ‘torture state’ to Turkey? If so, how does the Council explain the statement by Mr Sklan that: By far the largest group of patients of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are from Turkish Kurdistan?
3. Does the Council endorse Mr Sklan’s view that ‘Torture is endemic, routine, inherent in the enforcement of so-called law and order’ in Turkey’? If not, why not, and how can the Council’s position be reconciled with the fact that, as Mr Sklan says: ‘By far the largest group of patients of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are from Turkish Kurdistan’?
Reply
(28 March 2000)
The Council welcomes all the efforts in Member States contributing to the situation of victims of torture and violence, including those mentioned by the Honourable Members. It is not aware of the statements on Turkey by Mr Sklan, referred to by the Honourable Members. The Council is not in the habit of evaluating the work of non-governmental organisations, but considers that this falls within the competence of national authorities.
The Council continues to be concerned about the situation of human rights in Turkey. In the spirit of the European Parliament’s request made to the Council in the context of the EP’s assent to implement the final phase of the Customs Union, the Council continues to closely monitor human rights and democratic developments in Turkey.
Furthermore, the Council believes that the decisions taken by the Helsinki European Council will encourage Turkey to take further steps in the field of human rights and democracy. The Helsinki European Council decided that Turkey is a candidate State destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate States. Compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria is a prerequisite for the opening of any accession negotiations. The Council underlines that stability of institutions guaranteeing human rights and respect for and protection of minorities is one of the Copenhagen political criteria. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/163
According to the Helsinki European Council conclusions, building on the existing European strategy, Turkey, like other candidate States, will benefit from a pre-accession strategy to stimulate and support its reforms. This will include enhanced political dialogue, with emphasis on progressing towards fulfilling the political criteria for accession with particular reference inter alia to the issue of human rights. In practice, in all the political dialogue meetings with the Turkish authorities at the level of Foreign Ministers and Political Directors the Council addresses human rights issues.
(2000/C 280 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0030/00 by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(19 January 2000)
Subject: Monitoring of the referendum in Western Sahara
For more than seven years, the Sahrawi people have been waiting for news from the Moroccan authorities about a referendum on the future of Western Sahara. The Moroccan authorities have more than once broken agreements they had with Polisario regarding the date of the referendum. However, registration of those entitled to vote has now resumed, and a referendum campaign is being planned that is expected to be concluded on 31 July 2000, which is also the date on which the referendum is scheduled to take place. The risk of electoral fraud is great, and an international team of monitors needs to be sent in order to ensure that the referendum takes place in a democratic manner. Will the Commission assist in monitoring the referendum on the future of Western Sahara?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(14 February 2000)
The Commission is keeping track of developments in the implementation of the plan adopted by the UN Security Council for the settlement of the Western Sahara conflict. The UN Secretary-General’s efforts to find a just, equitable and lasting solution for the Western Sahara have its full support. It is therefore ready to provide assistance at every stage of the planned settlement. On the specific issue of the referendum, the Commission is aware that its organisation is threatened by problems with the finalisation of the electoral lists. As the UN Security Council pointed out in resolution 1282/99 of 14 December 1999, these problems ‘... seem to allow little possibility of holding the referendum before 2002 or even beyond’.
(2000/C 280 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0031/00 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council
(20 January 2000)
Subject: Nuclear threat of Akkuyu
Further to previous questions and ahead of Turkey’s final decision on the construction of a nuclear plant in the earthquake-prone region of Akkuyu, Canadian Federal MPs opposed to Canada’s intention to supply Turkey with nuclear reactors have made public the following further reasons for their position:
the financial burden on Canada of a 1,5 billion dollar loan to Turkey,
the possibility of Akkuyu developing into a second Chernobyl which will pose a serious threat to the lives of 144 million people in the eastern Mediterranean,
the fundamental fear of providing Turkey with the means of manufacturing nuclear weapons through related technology, as occurred with India and Pakistan. C 280 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Furthermore, recent studies by eminent seismologists, such as Karl Buckthought of the Earthquake Forecasts Incorporation, conclude that there is a 50 % probability of a Richter Scale 7 earthquake occurring within the next 40 years which will completely destroy the reactor with the loss of millions of human lives.
In the light of the above and the new circumstances created by the recent disastrous earthquakes, in what manner will the Council intervene to enable Turkey to acquire the financial means to develop renewable energy sources and to call off the construction of the nuclear plant?
Reply
(16 March 2000)
The Council is well aware of the importance of nuclear safety in third countries and has initiated a series of actions, in particular through assistance programmes. On 7 December 1998, the Council adopted conclusions on nuclear safety in the context of the enlargement of the European Union (1) which give a clear message to candidate countries on the importance to be given to nuclear safety.
The Council shares the views of the Honourable Parliamentarian on the need to promote the development of renewable energy sources. In this context, it underlines that the promotion of renewable sources of energy in countries of the Mediterranean regions, including Turkey, is mainly ensured through cooperation within the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and its principal financial instrument, the MEDA Programme, and through the SYNERGY Programme, which is one of the specific programmes in the international field within the multiannual Framework Programme for actions in the energy sector (2).
Both Programmes provide for actions which contribute to the achievement of the objectives of energy policy: security of supply, competitiveness and protection of the environment and have particular components for the development of renewable energy sources. The implementation of these Programmes is the responsibility of the Commission.
(1) Doc. 13677/98 (Presse 431-G). (2) OJ L 7, 13.1.1999, p. 16.
(2000/C 280 E/187) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0036/00
by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission
(19 January 2000)
Subject: Constanta-Trieste oil pipeline project
According to various reports in the press, two projects for the construction of a new oil pipeline linking the Romanian port of Constanta to the Italian port of Trieste are currently under examination, one by the Italian company ENI and one by an American consortium. The pipeline would cross Hungary and Slovenia and would also provide oil to these two applicant countries.
Does the Commission not think it would be advisable to support the construction of this pipeline, particularly in the light of recent ecological disasters, such as the oil slicks in the Vendée and the Bosphorus strait, and also in order to promote improved access to the Transcaucasus, the diversification of energy supply routes for the countries of central and south-east Europe and the development of the ports of Supsa and Constanta?
Has the Commission already taken or does it intend to take any initiatives on this matter? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/165
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(23 February 2000)
The Commission recognises the importance of the Constanta-Trieste oil pipeline for reducing environ- mental risks associated with transporting oil across the Bosphorus, and for diversifying the energy supply base of the countries of South Eastern Europe by giving them access to the resources of the Caspian region, inter alia via the Trans-Caucasian corridor and the seaports of the west coast of the Black Sea, including the oil port of Constanta.
The Commission would remind the Honourable Member of the Community’s position on the importance of resources from the Caspian Sea region for European energy supplies, the need to have a number of safe supply routes to the European and international markets, and the importance of investors building such routes on the basis of commercial criteria.
Consequently, in view of the impending enlargement of the Community and in the interests of secure energy supplies, the Commission has been implementing an interstate technical assistance programme (Inogate-Interstate oil and gas transport to Europe) since 1995, being aware of the need to facilitate the integration of oil transport networks between the former Soviet Union, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Community.
The aim of the programme is to develop cooperation between the countries in these regions to create the conditions to attract public and private investment in the rehabilitation and modernisation of existing networks and the development of new technically and economically viable and environmentally sound routes.
In institutional terms the programme has enabled a new system to be developed for cross-border transport of oil and gas compatible with international standards: the Inogate Umbrella Agreement. This has so far been signed by representatives of the Governments of 16 countries in Central Asia, the Caucasus, Central and Eastern Europe (accession candidates, including Romania) and the Balkans.
It has facilitated the emergence of a variety of projects linking the Caspian Basin to European markets via the Trans-Caucasian corridor, the port of Supsa and ports on the Western shore of the Black Sea. These included the Constanta-Trieste, Odessa-Gdansk, Burgas-Alexandropoulis and Burgas-Vlore projects. Although it does not wish to express any preferences, the Commission recognises the importance of the Constanta-Trieste project for the markets of South-Eastern Europe.
The Romanian authorities intend to organise a meeting under the Inogate Agreement in the near future bringing together the industry ministers of the countries which might be concerned by the corridor to identify the institutional and technical pre-conditions before submitting the final project to interested private and institutional investors.
The Commission is willing to provide technical assistance under the Inogate programme to the Govern- ments of Romania and any other countries that may be involved to help prepare and, if it is adopted, implement the project.
(2000/C 280 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0056/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: The choice of cultural and ethnic categories on equal opportunities forms
What is the Commission’s view of the contents of a recent ‘Monitoring of EQUAL Opportunities Policy’ form, distributed by the European section of a large political party, which used the following classifications of cultural and ethnic origin ‘as recommended by the (UK) Commission for Racial Equality’: White, Black Caribbean, Black African, Black Other, Indian, Irish, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Asian, Other; why there should be an ‘Irish’ category distinct from the broad classification of ‘white’ (whereas no other EU Member State is deemed different enough to warrant such a distinction) and whether requesting that citizens from Ireland should be asked to distinguish themselves differently on such a form is legally permissible? C 280 E/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(17 February 2000)
As the Honourable Member will be aware, the choice of cultural and ethnic categories on equal opportunities forms is not in itself the subject of Community law. However, Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1) expressly prohibits the processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade- union membership, and the processing of data concerning health or sex life. This prohibition is lifted in a number of limited circumstances, including where the consent of the individual concerned has been given.
Subject to the conditions laid down in that Directive, the Commission believes that the collection of statistical information on discrimination related to racial and ethnic origin, whether real or presumed, can make a useful contribution to ensuring equality of treatment and opportunity. The proposal for a Council decision establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination (2001-2006), adopted by the Commission on 25 November 1999 (2), includes a strand devoted to the collection and analysis of data related to discrimination on the grounds covered by the programme, including racial and ethnic origin.
As regards the particular categories to be used in such monitoring, the Commission believes that this should be left to the particular Member States concerned, given the existence of different minority ethnic groups in the different Member States. The Commission cannot in any case comment on the choices made in the internal documents of political parties.
(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995. (2) COM(99) 567 final.
(2000/C 280 E/189) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0062/00 by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Increase in air fares
1. Is the European Commission aware that the major European airlines, acting in unison, have terminated their current agency contracts with travel agencies and offered them new contracts involving lower agency fees, those fees being in every case identical?
2. Is it also aware that the travel agencies have offset the consequent reduction in their revenue by levying a new ‘transaction fee’ on travellers who, being final consumers, are therefore unable to avoid a hidden and mutually agreed increase in air fares?
3. Does the Commission share my view that, although travellers may circumvent this increase in air fares by booking with the airlines directly, they must, if they do so, put up with poorer service and accept that a large number of jobs in travel agencies may be lost?
4. Does the European Commission consider that such price agreements, the cost of which is ultimately paid by the final consumer and which jeopardise the job security of people working in travel agencies, are compatible with current European law? When, and how, will the Commission intervene if there has been a breach of Community law or if even the slightest whiff of suspicion exists that Community law has been breached?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(17 February 2000)
The Commission informs the Honourable Member that it has been actively studying the relationship between airlines and travel agents. In a recent competition law decision (1) the Commission set out its policy on the commissions paid by airlines to travel agents. One of the facts established in this decision 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/167
was that British Airways had reduced the basic commission paid to travel agents in the United Kingdom, and introduced a new scheme by which travel agents could earn extra commission by meeting certain targets. The decision found that these supplementary commission schemes were abuses of British Airways’ dominant position on the United Kingdom market for travel agents services. These commission schemes secured the loyalty of travel agents rather than being given in return for extra services from the travel agents or cost savings realised by British Airways. Several complaints have been received of similar behaviour by other Community airlines. The Commission is taking all measures necessary to ensure that the principles in the British Airways decision are applied to other Community airlines in equivalent situations.
However the Commission does not currently have evidence that airlines have colluded to lower their basic commissions simultaneously. Also it does not have any indication that the majority of travel agents are introducing the ‘transaction levy’ described in a concerted fashion. As a result it is not clear that the ‘increase in air fares’ described is taking place. The Commission’s efforts have been focussed on the new supplementary commission schemes introduced by some airlines which allow travel agents to compensate for the reduction in basic commission. The Commission has no view on the relative merits of direct purchases of air tickets by consumers and purchase through travel agents.
The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern that the relationship between some airlines and travel agents could have serious negative effects on other airlines, travel agents and ultimately on consumers. Current actions are designed to ensure that the relevant principles of European law are respected, protecting against these negative effects.
(1) Commission Decision 1999/1973/EC British Airways, not yet published.
(2000/C 280 E/190) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0063/00
by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Reduction of VAT on repairs to historic buildings
Could the Commission clarify whether the Directive 1999/85/EC (1), providing for an experimental reduced rate of VAT for selected labour-intensive services, has in any way affected the Commission’s position regarding the reduction of VAT on repairs to historic buildings?
Could the Commission also clarify the position regarding the reduction of VAT on repairs to historic buildings?
(1) OJ L 277, 28.10.1999, p. 34.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(17 February 2000)
In principle, current Community legislation does not allow Member States to apply reduced rates of VAT to services consisting of repairs to historic buildings as such.
Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999 amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the possibility of applying on an experimental basis a reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services (1) allows Member States that have submitted an appropriate request to apply reduced rates to labour-intensive services on an experimental basis from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002, on condition, of course, C 280 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
that they satisfy the conditions laid down in particular that they are provided direct to final consumers and are covered by the list of eligible sectors.
The Council changed the Commission’s proposal (2) by introducing an exhaustive list which in the building sector covers only services consisting of the renovation and repairing of private dwellings, excluding materials which form a significant part of the value of the service supplied.
Following the Council’s decision, work to repair historic buildings will qualify for VAT reductions, but only where the buildings contain private dwellings and the Member State has made a request. The Member States that have made requests are Belgium, Spain (for masonry work only), France, Italy, the Netherlands (for painting and plastering only), Portugal and the United Kingdom (for the Isle of Man only).
(1) OJ C 102, 13.4.1999. (2) COM(99) 705 final.
(2000/C 280 E/191) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0064/00
by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: Definition of fundamental change in pharmaceutical products
Commission Regulation (EC) No 541/95 (1) states that certain changes to the terms of a pharmaceutical product marketing authorisation are fundamental and as such require that a new, complete scientific evaluation be conducted (such as in the case of replacement of the active substance by a different salt/ester.
Can the Commission confirm that:
1. The rationale for defining fundamental changes and requiring them to be the subject of new applications rather than variation applications was that special scrutiny of the research data relating to that change would be required by the competent authorities before it could properly be concluded that the public health criteria of quality, safety and efficacy were still met for the production in question, and
2. In principle the same cautious approach should apply if the same fundamental differences exist between two products where it is claimed that one is a generic copy of the other and that that copy can be authorised on the basis of the research data generated for the first product?
(1) OJ L 55, 11.3.1995, p. 7.
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(11 February 2000)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 541/95 of 10 March 1995 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of a marketing authorisation granted by a competent authority of a Member State, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 542/95 of 10 March 1995 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of a marketing authorisation falling within the scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/ 93 (1), as amended (2), lay down rules governing the examination of variations to a marketing authorisation granted for a medicinal product by either of the following Community procedures: the mutual recognition procedure or the centralised procedure.
The Regulations provide for three types of variation to the terms of a marketing authorisation, depending on their importance and the time allowed for their assessment: minor variations (type I), listed in Annex I, major variations (type II) and changes which fundamentally alter the terms of the authorisation. The latter 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/169
must be approved by a complete assessment procedure similar to that for new applications for marketing authorisation and the assessment period (210 days) is exactly the same as that for new applications. Such changes are listed in Annex II. They include changes to the active substance(s), the therapeutic indications or the strength, pharmaceutical form and route of administration. However, it should be noted that even these are always variations to an authorisation which has already been granted for a given medicinal product.
With regard to the examination of data, the same criteria of quality, safety and efficacy must be met in all cases.
The same assessment criteria of quality, safety and efficacy apply to generic products. The applicant can be exempted from safety and efficacy trials only if he can show that the product for which the authorisation has been requested is essentially the same as another products which already has a marketing authorisa- tion.
(1) OJ L 55, 11.3.1995. (2) OJ L 159, 3.6.1998.
(2000/C 280 E/192) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0069/00
by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(24 January 2000)
Subject: Checks on data exchange and telecommunications in the EU Member States
As part of the annual Ilets (International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar) consultation process the police forces of the fifteen Member States are working on the sophisticated interception practices of the National Security Agency (NSA), the American secret service responsible for telecommu- nications and data exchange. At the request of the NSA, Lotus, Microsoft and Netscape have lowered the security level of their Internet and e-mail programmes for users outside the United Status. The interception facilities are used mainly for industrial espionage.
In the EU report ‘Interception capabilities 2000’ Duncan Campbell says that the result is that virtually every computer in Europe has, as a built-in standard feature, a system that enables the NSA alone to crack the user’s code and to read secured messages. The messages are intercepted at US Internet nodes or are picked up by the Echelon espionage network of the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia (the ‘UKUSA’ group).
The NSA bases its interception practices on the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (Calea) which was adopted by Congress in 1994. Since then American telecommunications forms have been obliged to build interception facilities into all digital satellite and mobile communications media. In January 1995 the Council adopted a (non-binding) resolution which is virtually identical to Calea. Approval of the use of these radical measures has never been subject to any parliamentary scrutiny.
1. Can the Council give me a copy of the (non-binding) Calea resolution, as adopted in January 1995?
If not:
(a) why not, and
(b) does this refusal not violate the principle of parliamentary accountability in a constitutional state governed by the rule of law? C 280 E/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
2. Has the Council amended the (non-binding) Calea resolution over the years?
If so:
(a) what changes have been made,
(b) when,
(c) why, and
(d) at whose request?
3. Does the Council not think it would be better to draw up a ‘public’ directive in order to permit democratic accountability? If not, why does the Council not think that there is a need for such democratic accountability?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
1. The Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 on the lawful interception of telecommunications has been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (1).
2. The Council has not amended the above-mentioned Resolution of 17 January 1995.
3. If the development of new technologies makes adjustments necessary, the Council will examine the possible adaptation of the requirements listed in the above Council Resolution.
(1) OJ C 329, 4.11.1996, p. 1.
(2000/C 280 E/193) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0070/00 by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: EU relations with Libya
Is there any truth in the European media reports to the effect that the President of the Commission has invited Mr Muammar Gadhafi to make an official visit to the Commission?
If those reports are accurate, what strategy is being pursued by means of such a step?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(8 February 2000)
President Prodi held telephone conversations with Colonel Gaddafi over Christmas (when the possibility of a visit was first mooted) and on 21 January 2000. He was seeking to ascertain whether the political conditions could be met for a visit by Colonel Gaddafi to the Commission.
President Prodi reaffirmed the established policy of the Union to seek to integrate Libya into the Euro-Med process, provided that Libya fully accepts the principles laid down in the Declaration of Barcelona. President Prodi reiterated that unless written unconditional acceptance of such principles was given, a visit could not take place.
The Libyan authorities replied on 22 January 2000 confirming Libya’s deep interest in participating in the Euro-med process while stating at the same time that Libya is at present unable to give any formal commitment to the full acceptance of the Barcelona acquis. It was concluded that in these circumstances a visit at this stage would be inapppropriate. Discussions will continue in order to ascertain whether the conditions for a visit could be met. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/171
(2000/C 280 E/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0075/00 by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission
(24 January 2000)
Subject: Question of Cypriot and Maltese flags of convenience following the wreck of the Erika
On 12 December 1999 the wreck of the Erika, an oil tanker flying the Maltese flag, stirred up again the controversy over flags of convenience.
The largest merchant fleets are those of Liberia, Honduras, Panama and the Bahamas, but also Cyprus and Malta, two countries that are preparing to enter the European Union. These countries offer ridiculously low registration charges, low taxation on the operating revenues of vessels, and reduced safety and inspection legislation. The Director-General of DG Transport, Mr Lamoureux, has expressed doubts about the genuineness of inspections carried out within those states. It has been stressed repeatedly that the authorities in charge of such inspections do no more than check the vessels’ papers and do not take the trouble to visit the vessels.
The accession negotiations with Cyprus were formally opened on 31 March 1998, and this can only be welcomed.
Malta’s application for accession having been reactivated in October 1998, bilateral intergovernmental conferences will start as soon as February with a view to opening negotiations to determine the terms of its accession.
Will the Commission place on the agenda for those meetings the maritime safety issues closely linked to the existence of flags of convenience?
Finally, the French Minister for Transport has decided to bring together maritime transport experts and professionals at a round table to discuss drawing up a maritime safety charter. Does the Commission intend to support that initiative?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(22 February 2000)
In the context of the negotiations for the accession of Malta and Cyprus to the European Union, those countries’ attention has repeatedly been drawn to the need to improve the maritime safety standards of vessels registered under their flags.
Discussions on this matter with Cyprus are at a more advanced stage and are beginning to bear fruit. Cyprus has given notification of a number of provisions to improve the performance of its maritime authorities and registry, and an action plan is being drawn up. Discussions with Malta started more recently. In its regular report on progress towards Malta’s accession of October 1999 (1) the Commission noted that Malta was still not applying certain safety and pollution standards required under Community law. There was an urgent need for progress in this direction. The maritime safety performance of vessels on the Maltese register was worrying. Improving the administration of Malta as a flag State remained a priority. An effective strategy should be introduced for removing from the register vessels that did not comply with standards.
The Commission will regularly monitor the progress of Cyprus and Malta towards these objectives.
The Commission welcomes the French authorities’ intention to organise a round table to draw up a maritime safety charter. The Commission for its part does not intend to remain inactive, and is drafting a communication on oil tanker safety accompanied by legislative measures for tighter checks on hazardous vessels, additional requirements for classification societies and an accelerated timetable for the phasing out of single-hull vessels.
The Commission hopes that this communication, which it plans to adopt at the end of March, will launch a far-reaching debate in Parliament and the Council and rapidly lead to more effective protection of the European coastline against oil pollution.
(1) CSR(99) 508 final. C 280 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0078/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(24 January 2000)
Subject: European initiatives to celebrate the work of the writer Giovannino Guareschi
The books of the writer, journalist, illustrator and humorist Giovannino Guareschi, which include ‘Favola di Natale’ (‘Christmas Story’), written while he was held in a Nazi concentration camp in December 1944, and the Don Camillo stories, written after the war, have been translated into almost all of the official languages of the European Union, as well as into Icelandic, Serbo-Croat, Vietnamese, Arabic and Lithuanian.
Guareschi’s books, writings, cartoons and other works, all of which seek to uphold individual freedoms and human dignity and to combat totalitarianism in all its forms (from Nazism and Fascism to Stalinist Communism), form a vital part of Europe’s cultural heritage.
In recent years, in places such as Roncole Verdi (Parma), Brescello (Reggio Emilia) and Fontanelle (Parma), private citizens and public bodies have set up museums, permanent exhibitions and trails to guide tourists around the ‘Little World’ the Lower Emilia area of the Po Valley, where Guareschi set his stories.
How does the Commission view the idea of funding cultural projects involving town twinning arrange- ments and other initiatives between various European countries, aimed at bringing Giovannino Guareschi and his work to the attention of a new audience?
What are its views on the establishment of a ‘Giovannino Guareschi European Prize’, sponsored by the European Union and aimed at artists and humorists whose work makes use of Guareschi’s traditional tools of humour and satire to promote freedom of thought and uphold human dignity?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(28 February 2000)
The Commission may grant support for cultural initiatives only within the framework and according to the criteria of its existing programmes.
The Commission wishes to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that, in the course of March 2000, a call for proposals relating to the first ‘Culture 2000’ framework programme will be published in the Official Journal, with Internet consultation also possible.
In the context of the ‘Culture 2000’ programme, funding earmarked for the field of books, reading and translation will probably account for around 11 % of the annual budget. Cultural operators hoping to obtain financial support will thus have an opportunity to present projects in line with the programme’s conditions and criteria.
As far as a prize is concerned, the Honourable Member is advised that, as provided for by the programme, the Commission will give due consideration to this idea and others, in the course of the year, with a view to establishing a coherent policy for ‘European cultural prizes’.
(2000/C 280 E/196) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0080/00 by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2000)
Subject: European Medicinal Evaluation Agency (EMEA)
Given that ‘early access programmes’ for new medicinal products are at present subject to national legislation, which results in serious delays as fifteen different authorities negotiate with pharmaceutical companies, compared to the USA, where one central authority, the FDA, grants such access and that this 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/173
laborious process can mean that several years elapse before European patients, unlike their American counterparts, can join such early access programmes, therefore denying them the possible benefits of promising new treatments, which in the case of HIV patients, for example, can mean the difference between a good quality of life and, at worst, death.
Will the Commission consider drawing up proposals to amend present legislation in order to allow the European Medicinal Evaluation Agency to represent the 15 Member States when negotiating early access programmes with the pharmaceutical industry, thereby closing the gap and ending the disparity between European and American patients?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(9 February 2000)
Most of the Member States have laid down procedures to allow patients with serious illnesses to have access in particular to medicinal products for which marketing authorisation has not yet been given. There are no Community rules and the above procedures are not harmonised. However, for medicinal products which are able to use the centralised procedure provided for in Council Regulation No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (1), when the application for authorisation to place a product in the market is ready, the applicant has the possibility of submitting the application to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products where a Community evaluation is carried out to enable the Commission to issue a marketing authorisation which is valid in all Member States and with identical information in the eleven languages. In the framework of the review of the marketing authorisation procedures planned for the year 2000, which are likely to lead to proposals for amendments of the current rules in 2001, the Commission could consider proposing harmonisation of the access to new major medicinal products once there are sufficient safety and efficacy data to allow this. The evaluation of those data could take place as part of a centralised evaluation with the possibility of a continuing review as supplementary data become available.
(1) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.
(2000/C 280 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0081/00
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(24 January 2000)
Subject: Proposals for amending Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products
With a view to improving Directive 85/374/EEC (1) on liability for defective products the Commission called on ‘interested parties’ to submit their comments on questions raised in the Green Paper on liability for defective products before the expiry of a period of four months from the date of publication of the Green Paper. As the Green Paper itself states: ‘The announcement of this move … naturally aroused the interest of the economic operators, consumers and public administrations’.
1. Does the Commission consider that the response of the economic operators and public administra- tions in the Member States to the questions in the Green Paper has been satisfactory?
2. From which Greek consumer organisations has it received comments? Did the General Secretariat for Consumers respond?
(1) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29. C 280 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(7 March 2000)
1. The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it has received nearly 100 comments on the green paper (1).
Replies emanate from national and European consumer organisations, sectors of industry concerned (in particular pharmaceuticals, cars, insurance, chemicals, agricultural products, electrical equipment), public administrations of Member States (Denmark, Germany, Greece, France, Austria, Portugal, Finland, United Kingdom) and third countries (Iceland, Norway, Slovenia, Switzerland) and bodies specialising in product liability (e.g. Pan-European organisation of personal injury lawyers, United States Defense research institute, Special committee on European product liability law).
The Commission published the comments on the Internet (http://europa.eu.int/internal_market/en/goods/ liability/replies.htm).
At this stage, it is premature to judge the substance of the replies.
2. No reaction has so far been received from any Greek consumer organisation.
(1) COM(99) 396 final.
(2000/C 280 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0082/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(24 January 2000)
Subject: Lack of transparency in respect of projects funded by the EU
Article 61 of the contract for the construction of the Attica highway (Elefsina Avenue Stavros Spata Airport) contains the term ‘confidentiality’ and stresses that ‘the contracting parties specifically agree and accept that all information, correspondence, documents, plans, … are confidential and shall not be given to any third party, or be reproduced in any manner or be published in any form’ and that ‘the obligation of confidentiality shall obtain for the entire duration of the contract and shall continue for a period of three years following the expiry thereof’.
Given that the requirement that public works and supplies contracts cofunded by the European Union should be fully transparent applies generally and also that comparable terms may exist in other contracts or may constitute a precedent for future practice, will the Commission say:
1. How will it ensure the transparency of funding and the proper implementation of projects which are cofunded?
2. Does the above-mentioned ‘confidentiality’ clause also apply to the Commission?
3. Will Article 61 of Law 2445/96 not make it difficult to trace the causes of the recent collapse of the bridge on the Attica highway?
4. What measures does it intend to take to remove the unacceptable wording of Article 61 which refers to ‘confidentiality’ and the ‘non-publication’ of information?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(9 March 2000)
On the basis of the information available to the Commission, the confidentiality clause in the text quoted by the Honourable Member refers to relations between the parties to the concession contract, i.e. the State and the enterprises to whom the contract in question has been awarded. This provision in no way affects 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/175
the ‘right of scrutiny’ which the Commission, and the competent public authorities in general, possess concerning the execution of projects financed by Commission funds, which is governed by a set of legal provisions.
In addition other provisions, notably the directives coordinating Community tendering procedures for public procurement markets with the corresponding national provisions, guarantee the required transpar- ency of the phases prior to a project being awarded.
Clauses of this type are often included in contracts governing relations between the parties, with the principal aim of protecting the interested parties’ intellectual or industrial property rights, trade secrets, and the secrecy of the negotiations. The Commission stresses that such clauses have never prevented the Commission, or other competent bodies, from exercising their prerogative to monitor that projects are properly executed.
As regards the specific case of the accident that occurred on the building site of a bridge on the Attica highway, the Greek authorities have set up an Inquiry Committee to establish the causes of this accident. On the basis of the Inquiry Committee’s conclusions, the Commission will take all necessary measures, as per Articles 38 and 39 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1).
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2000/C 280 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0083/00
by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(24 January 2000)
Subject: Hawsbill sea turtle
The critically endangered hawksbill sea turtle has been on Appendix I of CITES since 1975. Cuban and Japanese reservations allowed Cuba to export thousands of hawksbill shells to Japan between 1975 and 1992, when Japan withdrew its reservation. Since 1992, the international trade in hawksbill shells has been banned. In 1997, Cuba proposed to transfer the ‘Cuban population’ of hawksbills to CITES Appendix II, to export up to 500 shells to Japan each year, and to export over 5 000 kg of government shell stocks to Japan; this proposal failed by a narrow margin. In preparation for the next CITES meeting (April 2000), Cuba invited scientific authorities of European Parties to assess their hawksbill management programme. The UK, the Netherlands and Spain visited Cuba and may recommend that European Parties support Cuba’s proposal.
1. How does the Commission plan to address concerns that the Cuban proposal does not meet the criteria established at the ninth Conference of the Parties for down-listing to Appendix II?
2. Given concerns that the reopening of the legal trade in sea turtle products will fuel demand for shell around the world and cause increased poaching and illegal trade, should the Commission encourage trade in such a critically endangered species?
3. Given that experts have determined that there are no more than 5 000 nesting female hawksbills annually in the wider Caribbean, how does the Commission plan to address the fact that annual removal of 10 % of the population will have a detrimental impact on this critically endangered species?
4. How does the Commission plan to address concerns that sea turtles caught in Cuban waters are shared by other countries in the Caribbean, meaning the killing and export of shells will affect the population of other countries? C 280 E/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(8 February 2000)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-2488/99 by Mr Evans (1).
(1) See page 54.
(2000/C 280 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0094/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(26 January 2000)
Subject: Possible merger between the Astano and Bazan state shipbuilding companies in Galicia
The chairman of the Astano state-owned shipbuilding company in Galicia has said that one way of safeguarding the shipyard’s future would be to arrange a merger with Bazan (another state-owned company), which also has a shipyard in the Ferrol area. This would enable Astano to resume constructing conventional vessels. Can the Commission confirm this possibility?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(25 February 2000)
The possibility of a merger between Astano and Bazan is a matter for the Spanish government. However the Commission would need to ensure that the Community’s state aid rules for shipbuilding were respected.
As regards the possible impact of such a merger on Astano’s activities, the current limitations on the yard would remain unaffected. As the Commission has explained in its reply to written question E-0095/00 (1) and previous similar questions by the Honourable Member, the continued closure of the Astano yard to shipbuilding was one of the conditions for approval by the Commission in 1997 of substantial state aids for the publicly-owned shipyards in Spain.
(1) See page 176.
(2000/C 280 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0095/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(26 January 2000)
Subject: Construction of vessels by the Astano shipbuilding company
Could the Commission set out the conditions required for the Astano shipbuilding company in Galicia to be able to resume operations and thus escape the discrimination to which it has fallen victim?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(25 February 2000)
As the Commission explained in its replies to written questions E-1432/99 (1) and E-2051/99 (2) by the Honourable Member, the continued closure of the Astano yard to shipbuilding was one of the conditions of substantial state aids for the publicly-owned shipyards in Spain approved by the Commission in 1997. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/177
It should be noted that under the terms of the Commission’s decision approving the aid, the combined total shipbuilding capacity of all the yards involved was limited to 210 000 compensated gross registered tonnes (cgrt) for a period of 10 years. The Astano yard formerly had a shipbuilding capacity of 135 000 cgrt. Against that background it is very difficult to see under what circumstances the restrictions on Astano’s activities could be relaxed.
(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 66. (2) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 141.
(2000/C 280 E/202) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0097/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(26 January 2000)
Subject: Involvement of the Spanish Autonomous Communities in Union institutions
In answer to my general question on the above subject tabled on 12 October 1999 (E-1823/99) (1), the Commission indicated on 25 November 1999 that, under Article 203 (former Article 146) of the EC Treaty, Member States were permitted to choose their representatives in the Council according to their specific circumstances.
The Spanish Government has recently refused to allow the Autonomous Communities to play a direct role in the EU institutions by representing their people in matters falling under their responsibility, although the Congress of Deputies gave its endorsement for them to do so as long as two years ago.
In view of the plain fact that the Autonomous Communities are thus being prevented from exercising their constitutional powers even when, like Galicia, they are recognised to constitute nations in their own right will the Commission undertake to secure and guarantee their involvement in the reform of the Treaties to be tackled by the Intergovernmental Conference in the year 2000, bearing in mind, moreover, that a privilege along these lines has already been granted to countries such as Austria, Belgium, and Germany?
(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 58.
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(25 February 2000)
The Commission would point out that Article 203 (formerly Article 146) of the EC Treaty states that the Council must consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State. The Community institutions have no role to play in the choice of this representative, who is selected by the individual Member States in accordance with their constitutional law. The Commission sees no reason to propose an amendment to this provision.
(2000/C 280 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0101/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(19 January 2000)
Subject: EU asylum policy
In reply to my oral question H-0722/99, the Council explains that there are no common definitions in the EU of what constitutes a ’safe country of origin’ and a ‘manifestly unfounded’ request for asylum. C 280 E/178 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
In the light of that answer, will the Council say:
1. whether the decisions on asylum policy taken at the Tampere Summit have any implications for how Member States should assess asylum cases in which the applicant has been subject to persecution other than State persecution, and
2. whether the Summit’s decision on the ‘full and inclusive’ application of the Geneva Convention has any practical implications for how Member States should deal with and assess individual asylum cases?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
The Tampere European Council, while providing for the future common European asylum system to be based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention, calls for the establishment in the short term of, inter alia, common standards for a fair and effective asylum procedure, approximated rules on the recognition and content of refugee status as well as measures on subsidiary forms of protection. The European Council calls upon the Council to achieve these aims on the basis of proposals to be submitted by the Commission. The implications for the Member States mentioned in the Honorable Member’s questions will flow from those proposals which the Council will examine as a matter of priority.
(2000/C 280 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0104/00 by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(26 January 2000)
Subject: Allocation of Media II Programme appropriations to different Member States
The Media II Programme assists audiovisual projects. It covers three main areas of activity: training, project development, and the marketing and distribution of European film and television productions in other Member States.
What amounts have the different Member States received in assistance for the above three areas of activity since the programme’s launch? Why?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(2 March 2000)
The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the ‘Commission report on the results obtained under the MEDIA II programme (1996-2000) from 1 January 1996 to 30 June 1998’ (1), forwarded to Parliament on 16 March 1999.
More specifically, beneficiaries are selected by the Commission in accordance with the arrangements laid down by Council Decisions 95/564/EC of 22 December 1995 on the implementation of a training programme for professionals in the European audiovisual programme industry (Media II Training) (2) and 95/563/EC of 10 July 1995 on the implementation of a programme encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works (Media II Development and Distribution) (1996-2000) (2).
The projects co-financed by the Commission are not selected on the basis of nationality or Member State of origin but by virtue of their quality and European added value. Calls for proposals are published in the Official Journal. Guidelines are laid down, setting out the various eligibility and selection criteria.
A final report will be forwarded to Parliament when the MEDIA II programme has run its course, at the end of 2000.
(1) COM(99) 91 final. (2) OJ L 321, 30.12.1995. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/179
(2000/C 280 E/205) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0113/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Cancellation of debt of the poorest countries by EU Member States
Is the Council taking any initiatives, or will it take such initiatives in the near future, with a view to ensuring that all the Member States of the European Union cancel the debts owed to them by the poorest countries as part of far-reaching measures which will help launch a more balanced phase of world development, eradicating the extreme poverty from which many countries now suffer?
Reply
(28 March 2000)
At the annual World Bank/IMF meetings in Washington in September 1999, the donor community took an ambitious set of political decisions closely linking poverty alleviation strategies, structural adjustment programmes and the debt reduction initiative.
In this context, the ACP-EU Council of Ministers decided in December 1999 that unallocated program- mable resources from the eighth European Development Fund and earlier Funds could be used in the form of grants for meeting the outstanding debt and debt servicing obligations to the Community of the ACP countries which qualify under the highly indebted poor countries initiative (EUR 320 million) and for contributing to the overall financing of the highly indebted poor countries initiative for the ACP by providing up to EUR 680 million for the highly indebted poor countries Trust Fund managed by the World Bank.
Separate decisions will be adopted in accordance with the appropriate procedures to deal with the external indebtedness of highly indebted poor countries other than members of the ACP group, and budget resources will be used for this purpose as part of the Community’s development aid policy for the countries of Asia and Latin America.
(2000/C 280 E/206) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0114/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(31 January 2000)
Subject: EU plans with regard to the WTO following the failure of the Seattle Summit
Is it the case that, as has been reported in the media, fresh negotiations between the various economic blocs of industrialised countries and the poorest and developing countries are to recommence with a view to reopening the Millennium Round negotiations following the failure of the WTO Summit in Seattle?
If so, what provision will the Council make for Parliament’s participation in drawing up the European position in the light of the new situation, and given the changes which have since occurred in European and world public opinion?
Reply
(28 March 2000)
1. In its Conclusions of 26 October 1999, the Council established the position of the European Union on the preparation for the Third WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle. On that occasion, the Council reiterated its firm conviction that a comprehensive round of trade negotiations was the best way to address the challenges resulting from the current economic changes, to manage the globalisation process effectively, to expand opportunities for international trade and growth, and to respond in a balanced manner to the interests of all WTO members, especially the developing countries. C 280 E/180 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
At the same time, the Council underlined the need to involve civil society fully in the process and, to that end, to continue to engage with it in order to take into account its legitimate interests and concerns.
2. In its Resolution of 18 November 1999, the European Parliament had substantially shared the objectives established by the Council, particularly with respect to the global approach advocated in the abovementioned Conclusions.
3. Following the failure of the Seattle Conference, the Council bodies are currently examining, on the basis of information provided by the Commission, which was also presented by Commissioner Lamy during his recent appearance before the European Parliament Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the most appropriate ways of achieving the objectives set out in the Conclusions of 26 October 1999, which still form the basis of the Union’s position for the next round of trade negotiations in the WTO. At the same time, the Council’s subordinate bodies will also focus on analysing the deficiencies in the preparation and procedures of the Seattle Conference, in order to identify appropriate mechanisms for improving the efficiency as well as the internal and external transparency of the WTO process and to ensure the full involvement of all its members.
4. An initial exchange of views at political level on all of these questions will be held at the informal meeting of Trade Ministers scheduled for March 17 and 18 2000 in Porto. It will then be for the General Affairs Council to lay down the political and strategical guidelines in this area.
(2000/C 280 E/207) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0115/00
by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Unemployment and treaty reform
The Portuguese Presidency intends to devote the first European Council meeting to be held in Portugal to unemployment and social cohesion. It is clear that the unemployment problem in the EU in recent years has been directly linked to economic development, and the 25 regions with the lowest level of unemployment, at 4 %, are among the richest regions, while the 25 regions with the highest unemploy- ment, standing at 23,7 %, are among the poorest.
In the light of this situation, will the Portuguese Presidency include the implementation of a European employment policy at the same level as the regional development policy among the issues for which reform of the Treaties is proposed at the Intergovernmental Conference for the year 2000?
Reply
(16 March 2000)
Under the Treaty of Amsterdam, a new Title VIII on employment has been included in the EC Treaty requiring Member States and the Community to work towards developing a coordinated strategy for employment. While it is early days still in developing such a coordinated strategy, the initial experience of implementing the Treaty provisions, which began in advance of the actual entry into force under the Luxembourg process, has been encouraging. One of the reasons for the recent improvements in the overall employment situation are the policies being implemented by Member States and efforts to coordinate them through the various processes at the level of the Union. In all Member States, the 1998 and 1999 Employment guidelines have been successfully transposed into national action plans demonstrating the continuing and strengthened commitment to the process.
The Presidency’s aim for the special European Council in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March is to update the European strategy for growth, competitiveness and employment in the light of the new conditions, as well as to enhance the European Employment Pact. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/181
Neither the conclusions of the European Council in Cologne nor the conclusions of the European Council in Helsinki include the implementation of a European Employment Policy within the mandate of the conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States which shall be called to amend the Treaties.
(2000/C 280 E/208) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0125/00 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Arms exports
Is the Council aware that restraints on arms exports to countries such as Sudan are being evaded through licensing of arms manufacture to third country producers?
What steps will the Council take about this?
Reply
(16 March 2000)
The problem referred to by the Honourable Member has not been placed before the Council. However, the subject of arms brokering is currently being examined within the Council’s subordinate bodies.
(2000/C 280 E/209) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0134/00 by Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(20 January 2000)
Subject: Influencing of staff of DG XX (Financial Control) during inquiries by the European Court of Auditors
The web page of ‘Renouveau & Democratie’ includes the following questions to the Commission:
Is it true that prior to checks by the European Court of Auditors on the DG for Financial Control the management of the DG distributes a list of possible questions and suggested answers?
Is it true that staff are asked to report to management on the substance of the talks they have with the Court of Auditors?
If the answers are in the affirmative can the Commission answer these questions:
what were the ‘standard questions and suggested answers’?
does the Commission agree that this procedure is an impediment to proper checks by the Court of Auditors since it is impossible for staff to answer entirely freely?
what action does the Commission intend to take in response to this procedure, and when?
Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
(7 March 2000)
The list of questions which was distributed was not ‘possible questions’ but, at the request of the Court of Auditors, a questionnaire prepared by the audit team of the Court of Auditors. Also, what was put on the Intranet of DG Financial Control to be used as a basis for obtaining information were not ‘suggested answers’ but the answers to the same questionnaire by a unit of DG Financial Control. C 280 E/182 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Yes, the staff is required to report to management the substance of the talks they have with the Court of Auditors.
The Commission must preserve the confidentiality of the work of the Court of Auditors.
No, because the staff had and has both the duty to answer fully the requests or questions presented by the Court of Auditors and the freedom to express their opinion to the Court of Auditors in writing or orally.
No action is required.
(2000/C 280 E/210) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0135/00 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Progress in setting-up the European Police College
At the Tampere summit, the European Council decided to establish a European Police College, in the form of a network of existing national training institutes.
1. How far have the actual plans for establishing this European Police College progressed?
2. Within what timeframe is setting up of the college being planned and when is it to start work?
3. What will be the precise scope of the College’s activities, and what tasks is it to undertake beyond coordinating the national training systems?
4. How large a staff will be required in the Council’s view?
5. What expenditure will be involved?
Reply
(28 March 2000)
On 14 December 1999 the Committee referred to in Article 36 of the TEU decided to commission a preliminary study on the future network of European Police Colleges. The General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union is currently carrying out that study. It will be examined by the Article 36 Committee on 28 and 29 February 2000.
Once the preliminary study has been examined, the next step will be to determine how the network design that is generally supported by the Member States is to be implemented in detail. The Finnish Presidency set 1 January 2001 as the target for the network to start operating.
A detailed description of the network’s activities will be provided at a later stage. The tasks assigned to the network are currently expected to go beyond those now covered by the Association of European Police Colleges (AEPC).
No precise information regarding staff requirements will be available until the preliminary study, or even the second study, has been completed.
Precise information about the network’s financial requirements is not yet available. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/183
(2000/C 280 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0137/00 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission
(27 January 2000)
Subject: Rescue flight contracts with the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions
Current practice in Austria with regard to rescue flights is giving cause for considerable concern regarding its conformity with EU legislation. Although authorisation from the civil aviation authorities is needed to carry out secondary flights, that is to say transport flights between hospitals, it emerges that companies operating such flights, which have now been transferred away from the Austrian Ministry of the Interior, do not hold such authorisation. In addition, the main association of Austrian social security institutions has simply concluded an indefinite contract with the Federal Ministry of the Interior and another private body under which they alone can benefit from direct settlement of flight costs through social insurance.
1. Is the Commission aware of the above?
2. Does the Commission take the view that the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions is required to issue a Europe-wide invitation to tender for such contracts under the relevant European legislation, in particular Directives 92/50/EEC (1) and 89/665/EEC (2).
3. If so what steps will the Commission now take in response to this infringement of EU legislation?
4. If not, what is the Commission’s justification for this view?
5. Does the Commission consider that the exempting of firms with government links from civil aviation authorisation requirements constitutes an inadmissible distortion of competition?
6. If so, what steps will the Commission take?
7. If not, what is the Commission’s justification for this view?
(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1. (2) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(9 March 2000)
The Commission has received several complaints addressing similar facts. These complaints concern the issue of transport of sick people by road. The Commission is investigating the procurement practice and will have to determine if the procurement rules have been infringed.
When it comes to the legal assessment of the case the Commission is bound by the conclusions of the Court of justice in the case Tögel (1). In its ruling of 24 September 1998, the Court stated that the rescue and patient transport accompanied by a paramedic falls under Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (Annex 1A, category 2, and Annex 1B, category 25). When the threshold fixed in the Directive is reached, the rescue and patient transport accompanied by a paramedic has therefore to be published on European level. The Court however did not pronounce on the question which Austrian authority is under the obligation to publish.
The Commission will investigate the facts described by the Honourable Member. It will have to determine at a given moment if contracts concluded between the ‘Federation of Austrian Social Insurance Entities’ (Hauptverband der Österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger) and the ministry of Interior for the opera- tion of air transport for the sick and injured needs to be published.
(1) Case C-76/97 of 24.9.1998, Walter Tögel against Niederösterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse, preliminary ruling. C 280 E/184 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/212) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0138/00
by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission
(27 January 2000)
Subject: Human rights violations in Tunisia
It has been reported that the Tunisian authorities continue to harass members of opposition groups and their families, with particular regard to restrictions on freedom of movement and the denial of passports.
Article 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement signed on 17 July 1995 (COM(95) 235 final) commits Tunisia to ‘respect for human rights and democratic principles’, and Parliament expressed its concern in its resolution on human rights in Tunisia of May 1996 (1)
Is the Commission aware of the case of Ms Radhia Aouididi, whose movements have been continually restricted in Tunisia and who is denied a passport to leave the country?
Will the Commission ensure that human rights continue to be viewed as a crucial issue in its dialogue with the Tunisian Government?
(1) OJ C 166, 10.6.1996, p. 204.
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(24 February 2000)
Respect for fundamental freedoms is an essential element in the Association Agreement between the Community and Tunisia, and is no less important in our political dialogue. The second ministerial meeting in the institutional dialogue, which took place in Brussels on 24 January 2000, was an opportunity for the partners to take stock on the issue of respect for human rights.
The Commission, like the Member States in the context of the common foreign and security policy, is closely monitoring allegations regarding the protection of freedoms in Tunisia, in particular those citing restrictions on the freedom of movement. It believes that by means of constructive dialogue and positive support measures, and in line with commitments entered into under the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, the Community can work together with Tunisia in the process of human rights reform.
(2000/C 280 E/213) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0143/00
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(20 January 2000)
Subject: Town planning in an area with high seismic activity
In the Commission’s reply to my question No E-1882/99 (1) concerning town planning in the Community of Rio, it indicated that the Rio town planning survey was not receiving cofunding under the Community support framework for Greece for the period 1994-1999. However, the Ministry of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works categorically stated in its report (of 5 November 1997, No 32533/ 10402) that the studies in question were being funded under the second Community support framework running until the end of 1999. In view of this, can the Commission re-examine the question and give a definitive reply?
(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 80. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/185
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(11 February 2000)
Town planning surveys are included in the projects that can be part-financed under the Environment Operational Programme (EPPER II in Greek) of the 1994-99 Greek Community support framework. Given their number, however, the mode of financing (Community or national) is decided by the Greek authorities using specific criteria.
The Commission can confirm that the town planning survey for Rio was not, according to its information, part-financed under the OP but from national funds.
The Greek authorities probably intended, when publishing the report dated 5 November 1997 to which the Honourable Member refers, to propose this survey for part-financing under EPPER II but subsequently did not do so.
(2000/C 280 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0144/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(20 January 2000)
Subject: Extension of European arms embargo against Indonesia
1. Could the Council confirm that the arms embargo imposed on Indonesia is due to expire on 17 January 2000 and that, in view of the optimism about Indonesia’s future which prevailed until recently, it was not intended to extend this ban?
2. Does the Council recall the open letter of 27 November 1999 addressed by East Timorese Nobel prize winner José Ramos Horta to European governments and parliaments? In that letter, Mr Horta wrote that,
despite urging that all economic and financial sanctions imposed on Indonesia should be ended, he did not believe the time was right to lift the arms embargo. The last thing Indonesia needed was weapons. Selling arms to the Indonesian army, the TNI, would give the wrong signal. Mr Horta hoped that the greed and irresponsibility that had characterised the policy of certain countries which had sold arms to Indonesia were a thing of the past.
3. Does the Council agree that, in view of the role played by the Indonesian army following the referendum which resulted in independence for East Timor, in the fighting between Christians and Muslims over the Molucca Islands and in the suppression of the resistance engaged in by the people of Aceh over many years, the army may be seen as instigating conflict between sections of the population and threatening the existence of the democratic form of government introduced in Indonesia in 1999? And does the Council also agree that it is important to minimise this threat?
4. Would the Council be willing to take a decision at the latest at its meeting of 24 January 2000 to extend the arms embargo, which would allow the companies Hollandse Signaal Apparaten of the Netherlands and Thomson CSF of France not to go ahead on 1 February 2000 with the supply of equipment ordered earlier by Indonesia, without being open to the charge of breach of contract?
Reply
(13 March 2000)
The restrictive measures taken against the previous Indonesian Government in September 1999 did indeed expire on 17 January 2000. They were not extended. The EU noted, however, that EU policy regarding arms exports would be governed by strict implementation of the EU Code of Conduct. The EU also echoed the honourable member’s concern at the appalling violence in the Moluccas and the persistent conflict in C 280 E/186 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Aceh, as well as the tensions in Irian Jaya. The EU is determined to support the efforts of the new democratically-elected Indonesian Government to strengthen the country’s democracy, reform its military and judicial systems, restore the vitality of its economy and solve its internal conflicts through dialogue rather than force.
(2000/C 280 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0145/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Failure of Commission to quote references on correspondence
Is the Commission aware that it is still failing to mention references in its replies to enquiries from Members of the European Parliament?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(18 February 2000)
The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing to its attention the need to mention references when replying to letters, and would confirm that staff have been reminded to do so.
(2000/C 280 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0147/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(24 January 2000)
Subject: Operational problems affecting the TAXIS programme
Despite the assurances given by the Commission in reply to my previous questions (E-1802/98 (1) and E-0044/99) (2) that the TAXIS programme being co-funded by the Community was proceeding smoothly evidently based similar assurances received from the Greek authorities, the TAXIS programme was in fact non-operational for a whole week because of serious problems with the Neilos central computer resulting in a breakdown of communications between taxpayers and the inland revenue authorities. In addition, the hardware being used is outdated, while softwear used by the workstations, Windows 3.11, is 3 generations behind the more modern systems now in general use.
The Commission:
1. Does it consider that the systems specifications are keeping pace with technological developments and are meeting the needs of such a major project?
2. Does it consider adequate the training procedures for users of the new TAXIS technology?
3. Is it still satisfied with the progress made by the project following unprecedented delays affecting the timetable for completion and the major technical shortcomings which have come to light regarding application?
4. Who bears final responsibility for the problems which have arisen with regard to the TAXIS system?
5. What view does the Commission take regarding the timetable for completion of the project?
(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 88. (2) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 140. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/187
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(18 February 2000)
The TAXIS project forms an important part of the operational programme for the modernisation of public administration co-financed by the European regional development fund ( ERDF), the European social fund (ESF) and the Greek authorities.
According to information provided by the Greek authorities, the systems specifications of this project were designed to meet the operational needs of a highly complex decentralised integrated taxation information system for a large number of financial services directorates (tax offices) in Greece. On the basis of the provisions foreseen in the existing contracts the specifications were up-dated to the latest technological developments, at the time of installation.
The Secretariat general for information systems of the ministry of Finance has ensured intensive training facilities at three levels geared to meet the operational needs of the TAXIS project. Firstly, the technological familiarisation of operators with the system as a whole. Then follows training on specific taxation applications and finally, practical training facilities are provided in real working conditions.
The significant delays in implementation witnessed in the preparatory phase were justified by the nature and complexity of the project as a whole. However, in the framework of the monitoring committee meetings the new timetable established and the milestones set for effective conclusion of the project in 2001 have so far been respected.
(2000/C 280 E/217) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0154/00
by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Compensation for good damage caused by the abolition of customs formalities at the internal frontiers
The disappearance of the internal frontiers has significantly transformed economic activity in the areas where customs formalities were carried out and in some places, such as Ventimiglia, this has severely penalised companies which provided customs representation services. Many of these companies are being wound up and the remainder, having scaled down their activities to a minimum, will be forced to follow suit.
With reference in particular to Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 (1) on measures to adapt the profession of customs agent to the internal market, will the Commission say:
whether the measures provided for in the above regulation have been requested for Ventimiglia?
if, so, who has benefited from them?
if not, who is responsible for any oversight which may have occurred?
whether it considers that, in addition to the measures intended for employees, the regulation should also provide aid for companies in this sector?
whether it considers that, in cases where states have not complied with the regulation, a fund should be set up to provide compensation for the damages suffered by companies whose business activities have become obsolete, leaving them with no possible alternatives?
(1) OJ L 394, 31.12.1992, p. 1. C 280 E/188 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(2 March 2000)
The financial assistance given by the Commission to Italy for funding projects within the scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992 on measures to adapt the profession of customs agent to the internal market (1) amounted to € 4,4 million, with the total cost of the programme being 15 888 million lire. Projects financed in Liguria accounted for 17 % of the total, i.e. 2 707 million lire. 97 % of the operations financed were designed to be of benefit to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The contributions went towards investment in restructuring, modernisation/expansion, staff training, creation of new substitute activities and diversification of the market.
The Regulation in question was applicable for one year as from 1 January 1993.
(1) OJ L 394, 31.12.1992.
(2000/C 280 E/218) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0155/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Commission views on strictly limiting public access to policy documents
1. Does the Commission recall the efforts made during the Finnish Council Presidency to ensure that the best provisions on open government from individual Member States should also apply to European Union documents?
2. Has the Commission taken note of the article ‘EU wants document secrecy’ which appeared in the Dutch newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’ on 4 January 2000?
3. Can the Commission explain how these views tally with Article 255 of the Treaty of Amsterdam which deals with the right of access of citizens to Council, Commission and European Parliament documents? Specifically, documents which are:
(a) working documents and discussion papers, including those coming under the heading ‘freedom of thought’ and
(b) other documents, including all documents/reports leading to political decisions?
4. Does the Commission consider that, in particular after the demise of the previous Commission, openness and transparency in dealings with citizens are of crucial importance? Does the Commission also consider that this is a condition which must be applied if the various European Union bodies wish to be taken seriously by the citizens of Europe?
5. Can the Commission indicate how, with the views as expressed in the article in De Volkskrant, it thinks it will be possible in future for organisations and individuals in society to participate fully in the democratic decision-making process and to influence the process of European decision-making?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(2 March 2000)
The Commission has not forgotten that during the Finnish Presidency of the Council the Member States were keen to extend to EU documents the best national provisions on open government.
It was for this reason that the Commission conducted a comparative analysis of Member States’ current legislation on access to documents and based itself on the best practices followed in the Member States most advanced in terms of transparency when it drew up its proposal for a Regulation implementing Article 225 (formerly Article 191a) of the EC Treaty. This proposal was adopted by the Commission on 26 January 2000 (1). 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/189
The Commission is aware of the newspaper article to which the Honourable Member refers but would point out that the criticism voiced in it related to a preliminary draft which had not been approved by the Commission.
The Honourable Member will find that his concerns are fully met by the text of the proposal for a Regulation on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The proposal improves and amplifies the scope of the rules currently in force in the institutions, extending them to cover incoming documents in their possession.
The redefinition of the proposal’s scope in no way prevents individuals or bodies from participating in the decision-making process or deliberations of the institutions. Such participation is indispensable to decision- making in a democratic system.
(1) COM(00) 30 final.
(2000/C 280 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0159/00 by Carl Lang (TDI) to the Commission
(26 January 2000)
Subject: Flooding in the South of France
In reply to a question by my colleague Mr Jean-Claude Martinez (E-2395/99) (1), the Commission indicated that no emergency aid was paid by the Community to Member States in response to natural disasters but that it intended to provide ERDF or EAGGF appropriations for affected areas under certain conditions.
1. How will the Commission ensure that these notoriously bureaucratic and lengthy procedures are implemented rapidly?
2. How can the Commission justify excluding an affected area from such aid on the grounds that it is no longer situated in an area eligible for structural funds under the programmes for 2000-2006?
3. Given the profound injustice of a situation in which the Commission grants emergency aid to third countries while at the same time, refusing it to Member States of the European Union, will it remedy matters, for example by re-entering the appropriation under an amending budget for 2000?
(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 124.
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(23 February 2000)
The Honourable Member should refer to the information memo adopted by the Commission on 12 January 2000 (1) and also to its contribution to the debate during the plenary session of Parliament in January 2000 (2).
(1) SEC(00) 40. (2) Debates of the European Parliament (January 2000).
(2000/C 280 E/220) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0161/00 by Ole Andreasen (ELDR) to the Commission
(26 January 2000)
Subject: Information policy
At the European Council meeting in Helsinki of 10 and 11 December 1999, it was decided that the Commission should be invited to study the general question of the Union’s information policy. C 280 E/190 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
How does the Commission plan to proceed with this study? Will it ask an external body to carry out the study? If not, which service or directorate-general will be responsible for the study? Will the Commission involve the European Parliament? If so, in what way, and which bodies or committees will it contract? How will the Commission coordinate this study and its recommendations with the work done by Commissioner Kinnock on a Communication on Strategic Reform?
What is the timetable for the study?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(23 February 2000)
The Commission has taken note of the conclusions regarding information policy as agreed at the European Council meeting in Helsinki of 10-11 December 1999 and has started its preparations for a communica- tion on the ‘Dialogue with Citizens’. The new strategy will be based on partnerships with Member States and the civil society and make use of appropriate decentralized networks in the Member States. The Parliament will be fully associated in the process.
The new communication strategy which will be developed in the perspective of the broader reform of the Commission will be presented in the near future.
(2000/C 280 E/221) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0162/00 by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(26 January 2000)
Subject: Common VAT system Deductions
Articles 17-19 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) constitute a major source of controversy and interpretational problems for businessmen.
Does the Commission agree with the interpretations put forward in respect of the following issues:
Article 17 of Directive 77/388/EEC would never authorise the deduction of VAT charged on expenditure incurred with a view to the acquisition of shares in another company;
when a taxable person’s business activities involve simultaneously activities which are exempt from taxation and activities which are subject to taxation, the structure of Directive 77/388/EEC is such that, as regards the calculation of the proportion which is VAT deductible, the criterion of actual assignment must be applied rather than a general proportion for deduction calculated;
while, pursuant to Article 17(6) of Directive 77/388/EEC, deduction of VAT on the purchase of cars is restricted, even where such vehicles are used exclusively for a business activity subject to taxation, delivery or subsequent hire to which VAT is applied by the taxable person must take account of the VAT not deducted at the previous stage;
Directive 77/388/EEC provides for a common system for deliveries of goods or provision of services for the taxable person’s own use, but the Member States may derogate from that common system in application of Article 17(6) of the Directive;
the deduction of VAT provided for in Article 17 of Directive 77/388/EEC may be subject to an act of the tax authorities subsequent to the time when the right of deduct arose, determining the amount of the VAT due and authorising reimbursement of the tax paid;
where a retailer decides to embellish the pavement area outside his shop by installing a bench and plant containers with a view to attracting customers, the VAT payable on the cost of such embellish- ment of the pavement area is deductible, even though the work involved does not exclusively benefit his customers; 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/191
a Member State may not extend the period for monitoring the correct collection of the tax to 8 years from the date on which VAT became chargeable while simultaneously restricting the right to VAT deduction claimed by the tax authorities following such monitoring to no more than 5 or 3 years from the date on which VAT became chargeable.
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(17 February 2000)
As the Commission informed the Honourable Member in its answer to Written Questions P-2500/99 and P-2751/99 (1), the issue it raises concerns a number of very specific and complex cases of interpretation of Community VAT legislation. A detailed analysis of Articles 17 to 19 of the Sixth VAT Directive (2)is therefore required to decide what tax treatment to apply.
A detailed case-by-case examination will have to be made given the size and specific nature of the request which covers a vast list of transactions and practical cases.
The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member’s that such a detailed reply will require lengthy and painstaking research that it is unable to undertake at present and which goes far beyond the scope of an answer to a written question.
(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 152. (2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
(2000/C 280 E/222) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0166/00
by Rosa Díez González (PSE), Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Effects of state aid on the Spanish electricity sector
Given the enviable economic and financial situation of Spanish electricity companies receiving competition transition costs (CTC), what measures will the Commission take to link the payment of eligible CTC to the financial and economic viability of companies? Does it plan to assess the impact of and need for CTC at the level of consolidated companies or by individual assets?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(9 March 2000)
The Commission takes the view that, to rank as a stranded cost, a given investment or contract must become uneconomic as a result of the liberalisation of the electricity market provided for in Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1) and must significantly affect the competitiveness of the company concerned. The Com- mission analyses stranded costs on an asset-by-asset basis before determining their impact on the competitiveness of consolidated companies.
(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997. C 280 E/192 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/223) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0168/00
by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Road blockade by French lorries
In recent years, we have repeatedly witnessed strikes and, lately, blockades of intra-Community frontiers by French lorry drivers, with the inevitable adverse effects this produces on the development of the internal market.
It is no accident that these protests coincide with the period when certain products are exported from the Iberian peninsula, with the result that it is Spanish and Portuguese hauliers who really suffer the effects, as well as the other sectors concerned, since their only point of entry to the rest of the Community market is via France.
What firm measures will the Commission take in future to resolve this problem and prevent actions which recur each year at the same time and whose ultimate effect is losses running into millions for the economies of Spain and Portugal?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(16 March 2000)
The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission’s attention to the considerable economic impact on Community businesses of the border blockades imposed by French hauliers, particularly in recent weeks.
The Commission would like to stress that under Community law it is the responsibility of the Member States to take all necessary and proportionate measures to restore the free movement of goods in their territory when events of this nature take place.
With regard to the measures which the Commission may take, the Honourable Member is referred to Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States (1), which allows the Commission to take rapid action in this type of situation.
This action can, initially, take the form of a request for information sent to the Member State on whose territory the obstacles occur. Indeed, the Commission used this option when hauliers took action on 10-11 January 2000 and from 31 January 2000 to 1 February 2000. On each occasion, within the given time limit of two days, the Commission received information from the French authorities on the state of the dispute and on the measures taken to avoid blockades.
Subsequent Commission action can take the form of a notification requesting the Member State to take all necessary and proportionate measures to restore the free movement of goods within a given time limit. The Commission has not yet made use of this second option. During the recent disputes, it did not consider it necessary because the border blockades were lifted. However, the Commission reserves the right to use this option where circumstances require it.
The Commission would like to stress that, apart from the intervention provided for by Regulation (EC) No 2679/98, it is not within its remit to intervene in any social problems within the Member States which might result in action giving rise to the obstacles to which the Honourable Member refers.
(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/193
(2000/C 280 E/224) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0170/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Community rules on weekly rest days on religious grounds
The growing numbers of immigrants from the Maghreb region working in agriculture and other sectors in the various EU countries has meant that the relevant collective labour agreements covering workers from these countries have had to include provisions concerning the weekly rest days they may take on religious grounds.
Thanks to the pressure brought to bear by the unions negotiating the various collective agreements covering workers from the Maghreb countries, the rest days generally given are Fridays and Saturdays, allowing them to keep these days sacred.
As immigration from these countries into the European Union as a whole is on the increase, will the Commission say whether there are any Community provisions on this matter that would make it possible to extend the regulation of weekly rest days on religious grounds and introduce the necessary coordination with the practice usually followed in the Member States of the EU of keeping Sunday as a day of rest?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(15 March 2000)
Article 5(1) of Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) lays down an uninterrupted weekly rest period of 35 hours. Following the annulment of Article 5(2) of the Directive by the Court of justice in case C-84/94 United Kingdom v. Council (2), Member States are free to decide whether the weekly rest is to be provided during a given day or days of the week.
On 25 November 1999, the Commission adopted a package of two legislative proposals and a proposal for a programme to combat discrimination in the Community based on Article 13 (ex Article 6a) of the EC Treaty (3).
One of these initiatives is a proposal for a horizontal directive to combat discrimination, inter alia, on grounds of religion. Article 12 of this proposal requires Member States to encourage social partners to contribute to the implementation of the principle of equality of treatment by adopting collective agreements, codes of conduct, research or exchange of experiences and good practices aimed at preventing discrimination.
(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. (2) European Court Reports 1996 page I-5755. (3) COM(99) 564, 565, 566 and 567 final.
(2000/C 280 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0171/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Night charges imposed by pharmacies
In some Community countries customers of pharmacies have been required to pay a special charge when purchasing medicines at pharmacies on duty at night.
Clearly, this entails serious discrimination against those who, in a medical emergency and for reasons beyond their control, need to purchase the medicines they require immediately. C 280 E/194 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Does the Commission not agree that it has a duty to ensure that there is no discrimination against customers of pharmacies, whether they purchase medicines by day or by night?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(1 March 2000)
The Commission does not feel that the situation to which the Honourable Member refers raises a problem of Community law.
The national measures establishing the tax in question do not, in fact, appear to be either directly or indirectly discriminatory on grounds of nationality. This tax applies to the objective situation of citizens purchasing medicines at duty pharmacies at night, irrespective of any other subjective considerations relating to the purchaser.
In addition, the Commission notes that these measures do not affect the freedom of movement of pharmaceutical products, the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services.
(2000/C 280 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0172/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Vital institutional importance of the year 1999 in the history of the European Community
From the institutional point of view, last year was the most breathtaking and decisive year in the history of the European Community since it was established in 1957.
Both as regards the serious institutional crisis it underwent, which forced the Commission to resign, and its new role as a leading player in international politics, the European Union experienced a major upheaval which should be studied by thinkers and researchers in the field of political science to draw conclusions and anticipate future developments that will need to be taken into account, especially in the institutional sphere.
In the light of the above, will the Commission encourage studies and debates between experts and academics in the field of Community institutional studies, so that conclusions can be drawn from an interpretation of the institutional crisis which the Community underwent last year?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(20 March 2000)
The European Commission promotes studies and encourages discussions between experts and researchers interested in the Union’s political and institutional development. For example, in the context of the Jean Monnet project it supports teaching and research into Union affairs, including questions concerning its political-institutional system.
In the run-up to the 2000 Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reform, the Commission has asked the European University Institute in Florence to look into the possibilities and procedures for reorganising the Treaties. The findings of this study will be presented to the Heads of State and Government at the European Council in June.
In the context of the European Community Studies Association network the Commission supports and organises exchanges of and discussions by research specialists on Union matters and European policies.
The Commission is also engaged in a major project on governance in the Union for which it plans to co- opt the assistance of outside partners. It also encourages discussion and studies in research institutes and public and private think-tanks. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/195
(2000/C 280 E/227) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0177/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Making low-cost health insurance subject to free competition
1. Can the Commission confirm the accuracy of the announcement by the Council for Public Health and Care (RVZ) in the Netherlands to the effect that the Medical Insurance (Access) Act (WTZ) may no longer provide for a low-cost ’standard package policy’ for people over the age of 65, which every private insurer is obliged to offer?
2. Can the Commission also confirm that the ‘MOOZ,’ the solidarity levy paid by all privately insured persons to compensate health insurance funds with a large number of elderly insured persons for their low premiums and high costs, is no longer authorised by the European Union?
3. Does the Commission realise that, if the answers to questions 1 and 2 are yes, hundreds of thousands of individual insured persons on low incomes will find themselves in difficulty?
4. Can the Commission also confirm that it is considering other measures which would, if implemented, lead to a sharp increase in public-sector expenditure on health care, for instance the obligation to conclude contracts with a larger number of health care providers and agreements on health care costs and cover?
5. What action does the Commission intend to take to prevent health care in the Netherlands from becoming subordinate to considerations of free competition, in particular when the result of free competition is to increase individual and public-sector expenditure on the existing health care package unnecessarily?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(14 March 2000)
It is for each Member State to organise its social security system (including health systems) as it wishes, and to determine the conditions for entitlement to benefits under those systems, providing of course that they do so in accordance with Community law. There are Community provisions on the co-ordination of social security systems removing obstacles to the free movement of people within the Community and provisions on discrimination between men and women in social security.
However, the Commission is not aware of the specific announcement described by the Honourable Member, nor of any Community measures with the characteristics described. The Commission will therefore seek further information from the Dutch authorities.
(2000/C 280 E/228) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0182/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Exclusion from the right to deduct VAT on cars in Austria
In Austria it is not possible to deduct VAT on passenger cars and estate cars; this results in blatant distortion of competition for Austrian undertakings compared with other Member States.
The section of the Commission’s proposal for a directive COM(98) 377 final (1) covering the harmonisation of provisions on expenditure not eligible for deduction of the full VAT, as amended by the European Parliament, should therefore be implemented immediately. C 280 E/196 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Furthermore, the abolition of the VAT refund procedure under this proposal for a directive is to be welcomed because the procedure is extremely costly in virtually all Member States and, in view of the length of time it takes up to 5 years and the costs involved, it is having a damaging effect on the economy of the Union.
What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the changes to Directive 77/388/EEC (2) proposed in COM(98) 377 final or the proposal for a regulation can be implemented rapidly?
Is the Commission thinking of bringing forward the second part of proposal COM(98) 377 final concerning exclusions from the right of deduction, since what is involved is merely the modernisation and uniform application of the existing VAT system, but in a way that will reduce distortions of competition in the internal market?
(1) OJ C 219, 15.7.1998, p. 16. (2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(14 March 2000)
The proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the rules governing the right to deduct value added tax, to which the Honourable Member refers, was sent to the Council by the Commission for adoption on 17 June 1998. It could provide a genuine response to the problems raised.
Under Article 93 (ex-Article 99) of the EC Treaty, adoption of this proposal requires the Council’s unanimous agreement. The proposal is currently still on the table of a Council technical working party and no agreement has yet been reached on its adoption.
The attempts to reach a compromise in the Council have the Commission’s full support. Nevertheless, it wishes to ensure that any compromise reached is in line with the aims of its proposal.
As the Honourable Member rightly points out, the proposal is in two parts: first, the approximation of national rules relating to expenditure not eligible for a full deduction; and second, the introduction of a cross-border right of deduction to replace the refund procedure laid down in the eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (1).
The Commission considers both parts of the proposal of equal importance. The need for them to be separated has not yet arisen in the course of the discussions in the Council.
(1) OJ L 331, 27.12.1979.
(2000/C 280 E/229) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0184/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Failure of Greece to comply with Community legislation
According to the 1998 annual report on the harmonisation of the national legislation of the Member States with Community legislation, Greece appears to have failed to comply with Community legislation in 241 cases. Will the Commission say, in respect of the situation in 1999, in how many instances Greece failed to comply with Community legislation, what these cases were and what progress Greece has made as regards the 241 cases of non-compliance in 1998? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/197
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(9 March 2000)
The Commission’s annual report on the application of Community law lists all the proceedings initiated by it against Member States under Article 226 (formerly 169) of the EC Treaty, either in reponse to a complaint or on its own initiative, for failure to comply with Community law. As at 31 December 1998, there were 241 infringement proceedings under way against Greece. As at 31 December 1999, the number had risen to 259.
For further information on the nature of the infringements detected in the case of Greece in 1999, the Honourable Member is referred to the 17th annual report, which is currently being drawn up and will be sent to Parliament during the coming weeks.
(2000/C 280 E/230) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0185/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Failure of Greece to comply with Community Directive 92/43
Under Judgment C-329/96 Greece has been found guilty of failing to transpose in good time Directive 92/43 (1) on the conservation of the natural habitats of wild fauna and flora. Will the Commission say whether, following this ruling against Greece, the latter has complied with the Directive in question and, if not, what measures it intends to take to ensure that Greek legislation is brought in line with Community legislation?
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Answer given gy Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(22 February 2000)
Acting on the judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 June 1997 (1), the Greek authorities notified the Commission in January 1999 of Joint Ministerial Decision No 33318/3028 of 11 December 1998 transposing into Greek Law Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
(1) Case C-329/96.
(2000/C 280 E/231) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0192/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Cellular phones and health risks
Over the past few months an increasingly large number of studies have produced extremely alarming findings regarding the health risks caused by radiation emissions from cellular phones. Most recently, research carried out by Swedish scientists found that even some cancerous growths and disorders in the reproductive organs can often be attributed to the regular use of cellular phones and to the electro- magnetic waves which they emit.
Mobile telephony has only recently come into widespread use and even today this market cannot be considered to be fully developed, given that further quantitative and qualitative advances are still to be expected such as UMTS technology, which in the near future is likely to combine mobile phone services with the vast range of services available on the Internet network. C 280 E/198 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Therefore, before this situation develops any further, and to avoid a repeat of the tragic events linked to the industrial and civil use of asbestos, would the Commission state its views on this matter and provide details of the political initiatives it intends to take or has already taken with a view to protecting public health in the Community?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(14 March 2000)
The Commission, in its proposal for a Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 HZ to 300 GHz), adopted by the Council on 12 July 1999, wants to contribute as much as possible to ensuring a high level of protection for European citizens in a sensitive area which has not previously been subject to Community law. The Commission is preparing a standardisation mandate in order to take into account basic restrictions and reference levels of the Council Recommendation in relevant standards for mobile phones.
The Commission is following up this dossier very closely and is currently funding numerous research projects. During the third and fourth framework programmes the Commission financed and coordinated COST actions (COST 244 in 1992, followed by COST 244a in 1998) on the biomedical effects of electromagnetic radiation. The Biomed 2 Programme financed two studies on the links between electro- magnetic radiation and cancer. The ‘Measures and Tests’ Programme also funded a project on the measurement of electromagnetic radiation from portable telephones.
None of these studies (concerning thermal effects and possible interferences with cell metabolism caused by different types of electromagnetic fields) revealed any adverse health effects, but additional results are necessary to respond fully to public concern.
In the context of the Fifth Research and Technological Development Framework Programme (1998-2002), electromagnetic radiation has been specifically included in the work programme of Key Action 4 (environment and health) under Theme 1, quality of life and management of resources for living beings. The projects include a wide-scale epidemiological study (Interphone), coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which should cast light on the question as to whether electro- magnetic radiation from mobile telephones can cause cancer.
At any rate the Commission is monitoring this dossier very closely and will not hesitate to make a legislative proposal if its ongoing research programmes reveal new health risks linked to long-term exposure to low levels of electromagnetic radiation.
(2000/C 280 E/232) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0201/00
by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Commercial breaks in television schedules in Spain
Written Question P-3862/98 (1) criticised the failure on the part of most Spanish television channels to comply with Council Directive 89/552/EEC (2) of 3 October 1989 (the ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive). In particular it complained about the steady increase in the amount of time allotted to advertisements and the frequency of commercial breaks during programmes, including broadcasts with dramatical content such as films, plays and operas.
In its answer of 4 February 1999, the Commission stated that it was aware of these allegations and was gathering information to establish whether they could be substantiated. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/199
In the meantime this deplorable situation has in fact deteriorated so much that the absence or small number of commercial breaks has even become a kind of selling point for some programmes.
Can the Commission say what findings have emerged from the investigations announced more than a year ago and whether it intends to adopt measures of any kind to ensure compliance with the aforementioned Directive in Spain?
(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 138. (2) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(28 February 2000)
An infringement procedure under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty has been initiated concerning Spain’s failure to comply with the advertising rules enshrined in the ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive (Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and Council of 30 June 1997).
(2000/C 280 E/233) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0202/00 by Dominique Souchet (UEN) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Customs procedures employed against Saint Pierre and Miquelon
In the light of an inquiry conducted by the Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention, certain European customs authorities have been instructed to refuse certificates of release for free circulation from the Saint Pierre and Miquelon territorial collectivity pursuant to Article 101 of Decision 91/482/EEC (1).
In relation to this particular case, will the Commission say what it defines as customs clearance procedures not subject to ‘an exemption from, or a refund of, in whole or in part, customs duties or taxes having equivalent effect’?
In view of the huge difficulties that such procedures can and will pose for the Saint Pierre and Miquelon territorial collectivity, is the Commission in a position to grant the collectivity a stay of execution pending the final outcome of the ongoing inquiry, given that the latter has stated its readiness to take any corrective measure proposed by the Commission?
(1) OJ L 263, 19.9.1991, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
(25 February 2000)
In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, it was found that transport aid was being granted in territories including Saint Pierre and Miquelon, to economic operators transhipping certain goods there.
The Commission is examining, with due regard to the information provided by the French authorities and those of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, whether the transport aid amounts to a refund of customs duties under Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories (OCT) with the European Economic Community. (1) Under that Decision, products not originating in an OCT which are in free circulation there and are re-exported as such to the Community may be imported into the Community free of customs duties and taxes having equivalent effect, provided the conditions in Article 101(2) have been complied with (payment in the OCT of customs duties or taxes having equivalent effect, no exemption from or refund of customs duties or taxes having equivalent effect, in whole or in part, and presentation of an export certificate). C 280 E/200 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
In order to protect the financial interests of the Communities, the national authorities have been asked at this stage to take precautionary measures (deposits to be lodged by the operators concerned).
The Commission will inform the authorities concerned of the conclusions of its examination direct.
(1) OJ L 263, 19.9.1991. (amended by Decision 97/803/EC: OJ L 329, 29.11.1997).
(2000/C 280 E/234) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0205/00 by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(4 February 2000)
Subject: Possible EU legislation on dangerous sports
Can the Commission state whether there is any specific legislation on the EU statute book relating to dangerous sports such as martial arts and the protection of the participants in those sports?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(8 March 2000)
The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that there is no specific Community legislation on sport. The EC Treaty does not empower the Commission to legislate in this field. Regulations relating to sporting activities, including dangerous sports, are essentially the responsibility of the Member States. Several of them have adopted rules on instructor qualifications, access to activities, and safety standards, particularly in relation to sports regarded as dangerous. Sports federations also play a major role in organising and regulating their sports.
The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the Helsinki Report on sport (1) adopted by the Commission on 1 December 1999. In this report the Commission emphasises the need for a new partnership between sports federations, Member States and Community institutions while respecting the principle of subsidarity and the autonomy of sporting organisations.
(1) Helsinki Report on sport COM(1999) 644 final. Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework.
(2000/C 280 E/235) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0212/00 by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission
(4 February 2000)
Subject: Aid to the iron and steel industry
I recently addressed the House on the application in 1998 of the sixth Steel Aid Code.
Although I welcomed the quality of the Commission report, I was dismayed that it did not cover every aspect of the aid.
Although the Steel Aid Code is worded very clearly, the Commission has, on various occasions, authorised the granting to steel companies of aid which does not fall within the categories covered by the Code. With a view to ensuring a level playing field, the Code should either be strictly applied, or it should be changed if the Commission wishes to authorise aid of a kind other than those currently admissible in law. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/201
Does the Commission intend to do anything to clarify the situation?
Finally, we need to review the implications of the expiry of the ECSC Treaty. The aid system must continue after 2002. My view of this matter is that only a Council regulation will be able to offer the requisite legal certainty and guarantee a formal prohibition on any kind of aid not covered by the Code.
Is the Commission planning to submit any proposals along those lines?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(17 March 2000)
Every year the Commission produces a report on implementation of the steel aid code, covering all the decisions adopted in the course of the year by the Commission in accordance with it.
In 1993-1994 the Commission adopted decisions on aid to steel firms on the basis of Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty rather than the code but in accordance with the same procedure as the code and with the same force in law. Since then, no further decision of this type has been adopted. Implementation of the 1993-1994 decisions is dealt with in a separate report to the Council, as required by the decisions in question.
The Commission has not yet formulated its final position regarding the rules on state aid to the steel industry after wexpiry of the ECSC Treaty. As promised by the Member with responsibility for competition at the January 2000 part-session, the future proposal will be presented to Parliament. However, the Commission notes Parliament’s position as set out in its resolution on the Commission’s 1998 report and expressed by the Honourable Member in his intervention of 18 January 2000 and in this written question.
(2000/C 280 E/236) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0222/00 by Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: Duty of the Member States to submit reports
Will the Commission of the EU state how many legal provisions laid down by the Communities (EU and EC), divided into policy fields, entail a duty for the Federal Republic of Germany to submit reports?
Will it also give a detailed list of the legal bases of the Community legal provisions involved, stating how often those reports must be submitted (each year, each month and so forth)?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(16 March 2000)
In order to answer the Honourable Member’s questions the Commission would have to undertake lengthy and costly research. It cannot consider doing this at the present time because of other priorities.
(2000/C 280 E/237) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0228/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission
(4 February 2000)
Subject: Breach of the rules of competition in the selling of pet food in Spain
Illegal and unfair competition is currently occurring in Spain in the marketing and sale of pet foods, with the rights of consumers being infringed. Pet food manufacturers are operating separate distribution C 280 E/202 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
channels for supermarkets on the one hand and small retailers on the other. As a result, small businesses in the sector have been severely affected, since advertising and special offers for pet foods are being provided only to supermarkets, so that small retailers are unable to pass on these benefits to their customers.
This discrimination is exacerbated by the fact that manufacturers are offering supermarkets generally lower purchase prices for pet foods than small shops. This can be seen from the fact that small retailers are not properly informed of special offers, which means that the prices they charge are higher than those charged by supermarkets. As a result, consumers are choosing to shop at supermarkets and neglecting the small shops in their neighbourhood, causing many of them to close down.
Complaints have been made to the Spanish authorities about this unfair competition, since Spanish law does not allow goods to be sold at below cost price in the way that is occurring in the pet food sector.
Will the Commission examine, within the sphere of its responsibilities, whether the case in question also involves breaches of Community legislation on trade and competition?
Does it not consider that this situation in Spain undermines consumer rights, since it encourages people to shop for these products at supermarkets?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(15 March 2000)
At the present time, the Commission does not have any information which would justify the initiation of proceedings against petfood manufacturers in Spain, nor has it received any complaint regarding the practices objected to by the Honourable Member.
It should be pointed out that the differences in petfood prices between supermarkets and small retailers are not in themselves proof that there has been a breach of the Community rules on competition. In a market economy the prices in question may simply reflect differences in the negotiating power of the parties concerned.
In any case, the Spanish competition authorities, and in particular the ‘Servicio de Defensa de la Competencia’, would seem better placed to look into this matter, given that any distortions of competition are essentially occurring in Spain.
(2000/C 280 E/238) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0240/00 by Hans Modrow (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(31 January 2000)
Subject: CDU funding scandal
The preamble and Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union lay down the imperative of upholding democracy and abiding by the rule of law. The Tampere European Council charted the goal of developing the Union as an area of freedom, security, and justice.
Current political and economic developments in Germany are placing a question mark over observance of these principles. Manifest infringements of the principles recognised by all Member States are likely to fuel misgivings in the new German Länder and central and eastern European countries about adoption of the acquis communautaire, especially where compliance with democratic rules of conduct is concerned.
1. What does the Commission know about the sale of Leuna to the Elf Aquitaine company and what steps will it take in view of the fact that DM 30 m may have found its way into the CDU party coffers to be used as election campaign funds? 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/203
2. How does it propose to investigate the suspicion that money is being laundered in European banks, especially in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg, and enlighten the European public as to the facts of the matter?
3. Does it know of any other cases of subsidy fraud and distortion of competition connected with privatisation of State-owned businesses in the former GDR? If so, what further investigations does it intend to carry out?
4. Have persons implicated in the German funding scandal attempted to influence political decisions of the Commission or other EU bodies in favour of particular firms?
5. Will the Commission investigate whether money from the illicit accounts and other dubious channels was used for the CDU’s European election campaigns in 1989, 1994, and 1999?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(23 February 2000)
In the framework of its responsibilities for state aid control, pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 (ex Articles 92 and 93) of the EC Treaty, the Commission is currently investigating whether the cost of the construction of the Leuna 2000 refinery by Elf was artificially inflated. Elf could have received aid payments which go beyond the 35 % aid ceiling permitted in Eastern Germany. If this were to be the case, the Commission would request the reimbursement of part of the aid. As regards the investigation of possible fraud in relation to the granting of state aid, it should be noted that such investigations are the responsibility of the national authorities in Member States. The Commission will study with interest any conclusions such investigations may lead to in order to see whether it has to draw any consequences. However, it is only if the fraud is allegedly connected with the use of direct Community subsidies that the European antifraud office (OLAF) could intervene pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European antifraud office (OLAF) (1).
(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
(2000/C 280 E/239) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0256/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(7 February 2000)
Subject: European Union publicity material
In the answer given by Commissioner Oreja to Written Question E-3488/98 (1) he indicated that it was Commission policy not to issue publications in the UK except upon request.
The Commissioner also indicated that one million copies of the publication ‘Euroquest’ were published, targeted at schools.
Will the Commission indicate who requested so many copies?
(1) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 75.
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(3 March 2000)
‘Euroquest’, an 18-page illustrated booklet and map suitable for 7 to 11-year-old school children (Key Stage 2), was written by British teachers and published in 1998 by the Commission’s Representation in the United Kingdom. A copy is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. C 280 E/204 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
The booklet was developed after repeated requests from teachers for simple factual material about the Community and its Member States, for teaching purposes and in line with national curriculum require- ments.
In anticipation of demand, one million copies were printed. Since publication in June 1998, 460 000 copies of the booklet have been requested by primary school teachers, public libraries, local education authorities and European resource centres for schools in the United Kingdom. Orders continue to be received on a regular basis for several thousand copies a month.
(2000/C 280 E/240) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0257/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(7 February 2000)
Subject: Intergovernmental Conference
Can the Commission list those areas where it would like to see an extension of qualified majority voting at the next Intergovernmental Conference?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(23 February 2000)
As it made clear in its Opinion adopted on 26 January 2000 (1), the Commission believes that, apart from cases where the Council decides by simple majority, decision-making by qualified majority should be the general rule in the Council, and insistence on unanimity the exception. In Annex 1 to the Opinion the Commission listed the provisions of the EC Treaty that might remain subject to unanimity on the grounds that serious and lasting reasons justify departing from the general rule. Annex 2 to the Opinion lists the provisions of the EC Treaty which would then be subject to qualified majority voting in the Council.
(1) Adapting the institutions to make a success of enlargement. Commission Opinion in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union on the calling of a Conference of Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to amend the Treaties COM(00) 34 final.
(2000/C 280 E/241) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0261/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission
(2 February 2000)
Subject: Slaughter of animals at Eid-el-Kabir
Each year tens of thousands of sheep are religiously slaughtered outdoors in France at the Eid-el-Kabir festival. This is in breach of Council Directive 93/119/EC (1) on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing, which specifically prohibits outdoor religious slaughter.
Film footage supplied to the Commission by animal welfare organisation shows not only that the slaughter takes place outdoors but also that the sheep are often roughly and cruelly treated prior to slaughter. They are dragged by one front leg, carried upside down, carted in wheelbarrows and often have their front and back legs tied together. All this is in breach of Article 3 of Council Directive 93/119.
What steps does the Commission propose to take to ensure that EU law is observed at this year’s Eid-el-Kabir festival? Does the Commission intend to issue infringement proceedings against France under Article 226 in respect of its failure to enforce Council Directive 93/119 in its territory?
(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/205
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(29 February 2000)
The Commission is informed about the treatment of animals during the Eid-el-Kabir festival in France. The inadequate slaughterhouse capacities in certain urban areas of France appear to be one of the reasons for the observations made with regard to treatment of animals during the festival.
A distinction should be made between the problems resulting from the lack of slaughterhouse capacity and those related to the way animals are treated during restraint and killing. The Commission would welcome any effort from French authorities to find a solution for the problem concerning slaughterhouse capacity. On the other hand, however, treatment of animals which causes suffering during restraint and slaughter is not acceptable.
The Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Community legislation concerning the slaughter and killing of animals in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.
The Commission has contacted the French authorities in order to give them the opportunity to react to the different complaints received by the Commission concerning the treatment of the animals. The French authorities have informed the Commission that, for reasons of public order and public health, it has been found necessary to designate certain sites outside slaughterhouses specifically for the purpose of the celebration of the festival.
Some steps have recently been taken by the French authorities to involve Islamic cultural groups more widely in discussions on this issue in order to improve the situation and to achieve better animal welfare and hygiene conditions. The French authorities have stressed that progress needs to be obtained through consultation and consensus.
The Commission fully understands that the issues involved are sensitive and that in certain areas in France they create serious problems for the French authorities. It must, on the other hand, be observed that failure to respect the fundamental provisions of Directive 93/119/EEC and the relevant Community sanitary rules involves serious breaches of Community law. The Commission is therefore reviewing the matter with a view to possibly opening infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) EC Treaty.
(2000/C 280 E/242) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0266/00 by Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Commission
(7 February 2000)
Subject: Future of European stamps of philatelic value
The production and ownership of postage stamps has in the past generally been the monopoly of state postal services. However, as a result of wider social trends, state postal services too are being privatised.
Philatelists own large collections of stamps, the value of which rests upon the rarity, condition and inherent interest of the stamps. The most valuable stamps constitute a significant investment. With the privatisation of the postal services, the stocks of old stamps held by state postal services are being transferred to private ownership. Stamps owned by state postal services have hitherto been reckoned as perpetually out of circulation on the market. That being so, these stocks of stamps will constitute a threat to philately, if as a result of privatisation new collections of old stamps the value of which is in principle the same as the stamps in national collections and on the market appear on the market in addition to known stamps. Indeed, there are no longer any known limits to the quantity of these rare stamps, and even large collections could be ruined in a moment by a collapse in their value.
What measures has the Commission taken, or can it take, to ensure that the conditions for the pursuit of philately, stamp collection and related investments are preserved and strengthened in the EU? C 280 E/206 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(20 March 2000)
The collections of postage stamps that post offices may currently have in stock form part of their assets. Should a Member State decide to privatise its public postal service, it must also determine, as for its other assets, what happens to these collections, taking into account the market for them.
As the Commission is responsible neither for determining ownership arrangements in Member States nor for organising how stamps are issued, it cannot intervene regarding what is done with these stamp collections when such a change of status occurs.
(2000/C 280 E/243) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0283/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(3 February 2000)
Subject: CITES Listing of basking sharks
The UK Government has proposed that the basking shark should be listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
1. Will the Commission list other Member States which have indicated to date that they also support the listing of the basking shark?
2. Will the Commission indicate whether it intends to support such a listing at the next Conference of the Parties in April 2000?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(25 February 2000)
There are good scientific arguments for supporting the proposal to list the basking shark in Appendix II of Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES). However, the Commission itself has yet to adopt a formal position on this point.
Member States will indicate their views in the Council, which will in due course determine the Community’s common position on the basis of a proposal from the Commission for the CITES conference of the parties.
(2000/C 280 E/244) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0286/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission
(11 February 2000)
Subject: Difficulties affecting the Rome newspaper Il Tempo
The difficulties of Il Tempo, a well-known Rome newspaper which has not been on the news-stands for several days, have recently been causing quite a stir. The controversy has arisen because the publisher is continuing to take a hard line with those who are calling for negotiations, also involving the trade unions, in an attempt to resolve the problem of the jobs being jeopardised by the publisher’s restructuring policy. The publisher, however, apparently does not intend to abide by union agreements or the employment contracts drawn up by the journalists’ and printers’ professional representatives. In addition, the proprietor- ship situation is shrouded in mystery because the sum paid by the present publisher, Bonifaci, for the Società Editrice Romana seems to have consisted largely of money belonging to the Società Editrice Romana, in other words the company whose shares were the subject of the deal. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/207
In the light of the foregoing, does the Commission not believe that it should:
1. intervene in order to ascertain that the sale of the Società Editrice Romana was lawful and has not damaged free competition;
2. call on the Italian authorities to take steps to protect a leading daily and freedom of expression, which is possibly being endangered by Bonifaci’s strategies;
3. express a general view on the matter?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(20 March 2000)
The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for sharing her concerns regarding the current situation of the Il Tempo newspaper.
However, the matters referred to in the question do not have any cross-border dimension liable to come under the principles of freedom of movement or the rules on competition within the internal market.
This being the case, the Commission cannot comment on the matter.
(2000/C 280 E/245) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0305/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission
(4 February 2000)
Subject: Social benefits
Will the Commission say whether the Danish practice of allocating old-age pensions and government education grants on the basis of citizenship is consistent with EU law?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(28 February 2000)
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 these benefits.
There are, however, Community provisions for the co-ordination of these systems 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 Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (2) in order to ensure that employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families do not lose their social security protection when moving within the Community and also to ensure that the basic principles of equality of treatment and non-discrimination are respected (3).
According to Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, people resident in the territory of one Member State shall be subject to the same obligations and enjoy the same benefits under the legislation of any Member State as the nationals of that State. Should nationals of other Member States not be granted the people’s pension under Danish legislation on an equal footing with Danish nationals this would constitute a breach of Community law.
The Honourable Member refers also to education grants. In this respect, the principle of ‘equality of treatment’ means that the university or college where a citizen of the Union wishes to study must accept students under the same conditions as nationals. Therefore, if a grant is paid to nationals of the Member C 280 E/208 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
State where a citizen of the Union wishes to study, to cover course fees (tuition fees), he or she must be able to receive it.
However, the ‘equality of treatment’ principle does not apply to support or maintenance grants intended to help the students pay their daily living expenses, unless the student is a migrant worker or a family member of a migrant worker. In this last case, he is entitled under Community law, namely Articles 7 and 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (4), also to social advantages in the same conditions as the nationals. In conse- quence and as stated above, if the Danish legislation cited by the Honourable Member concerns these kind of grants, citizens from other Member States, which fulfil the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/ 68, should benefit from those education grants.
(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971 as last modified by OJ C 6, 10.1.1998. (2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972 as last modified by OJ L 323, 13.12.1996. (3) OJ L 28, 30.1.1997. (4) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.
(2000/C 280 E/246) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0333/00
by Barbara Weiler (PSE) to the Commission
(4 February 2000)
Subject: Rules governing the award of public contracts
1. What rules does the Commission intend to adopt to protect national labour markets from social dumping in connection with the award of public contracts?
2. What is the Commission’s assessment of the national laws on the posting of workers and what political action does it consider should be taken in the light of experience hitherto?
3. Does the Commission intend to take measures to stem the proliferation of pseudo-independent businesses?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(28 February 2000)
1. The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member, with regard to the transnational context, that on 16 December 1996 the Council and Parliament adopted Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1). In terms of Community employment law, it is this Directive which, through the protection it provides for workers, makes the most significant contribution towards establishing fair competition among businesses. It lays down a nucleus of mandatory rules on minimum protection to be observed in the host country by employers who post workers to perform temporary work in the territory of a Member State where services are provided. The Directive applies without distinction to the public and private sectors.
2. The deadline for incorporation of Directive 96/71/EC into national law was 16 December 1999. In view of this date, and taking account of a number of delays in communicating national laws, it would appear to be too early for an assessment of experience hitherto.
3. For the moment the Commission does not intend to take measures in this connection.
(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, pp. 1-6. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/209
(2000/C 280 E/247) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0335/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(14 February 2000)
Subject: Increasing the national guaranteed quantity of cotton for Greece
For many years Greek cotton production has exceeded the national guaranteed quantity (NGQ) of 782 000 tonnes, resulting in the imposition of large ‘fines’ and a drastic reduction in producers’ incomes, in addition to which the guaranteed target price (€ 106,3/100 kg of non-husked seed) has remained unchanged for many years.
In general terms, the producer organisations and other bodies involved are accordingly seeking an increase in the NGQ and in overall Community outlay.
In the course of deliberations concerning new arrangements regarding support for cotton production and the adoption of Commission proposals, did Greece request an increase in the national guaranteed quantity and total Community outlay? When did it do so and to which bodies did it table its request?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 March 2000)
The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.
(2000/C 280 E/248) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0356/00 by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Commission (14 February 2000)
Subject: European list of occupational diseases
The European list of occupational diseases, which is supposed to be open-ended, should take into account the new risks related to insecurity, the pace of modern life, constant changes in people’s jobs and working environments, and technological development, which all have psychosomatic effects (commonly referred to as ‘stress’) on the quality of life and health of workers.
In the light of various studies on the subject, will the Commission state to what extent this list of occupational diseases and new risks has been updated in recent years?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(13 March 2000)
The European schedule of occupational diseases was adopted in the form of Commission Recommendation No 90/326/EEC of 22 May 1990 (1).
On 20 September 1996 the Commission produced a Communication (2) examining the extent to which the Recommendation on the European schedule of occupational diseases had been implemented in the Member States.
In 1999 the Commission, in collaboration with the Member States, embarked on technical studies with a view to updating the aforementioned European schedule. Particular attention is being paid to the emergent risks to workers’ health, such as psychosocial risks.
Once this work has been completed, the new European schedule of occupational diseases is expected to be adopted in the first half of 2001.
(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1990. (2) COM(96) 454 final. C 280 E/210 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/249) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0370/00 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission
(4 February 2000)
Subject: Blockades by French lorry drivers
On 31 January 2000, blockades were set up by French lorry drivers at dozens of locations on the German, Belgian and Italian borders with France.
1. What can road-transport operators do in future to prevent damage to their economic interests when blockades are threatened, if alternative routes are not available?
2. What can the Commission do to prevent or limit damage to economic interests in the transport sector when blockades are threatened?
3. Can the Commission anticipate an active part that might be played by itself in providing information to professional organisations in the event of road blockades?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(29 February 2000)
The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission’s attention to the serious economic impact on Community businesses of the border blockades imposed by French lorry drivers on 31 January 2000.
The Commission would like to stress that under Community law it is the responsibility of the Member States to take all necessary and proportionate measures to restore the free movement of goods in their territory when events of this nature occur. The Commission would also point out that it is for the Member States to pay compensation to individuals who have suffered as a result of violations of Community law for which these Member States are responsible.
Moreover, since the entry into force of Council Regulation No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States (1), the Commission has had a legal instrument which gives it the power to take rapid action in this type of situation. It should also be emphasised that this Regulation obliges Member States to inform the Commission of unforeseen actions by private individuals which might have a serious impact on the free movement of goods.
The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that, with regard to the dispute in question, the French authorities sent a note to the Commission on Friday, 28 January 2000 in which they undertook to give their European partners as much information as possible and to facilitate the free movement of goods, whilst respecting the workers’ right to strike.
Also under the above Regulation, on Monday, 31 January 2000 the Commission requested more information from the French authorities about the dispute and the measures which were likely to be implemented to restore the free movement of goods.
In their reply of 1 February 2000, the French authorities provided this information, pointing out that instructions had been given to the public-order authorities to set up alternative routes and to distribute the necessary information to those concerned. They also added that measures would be taken to allow any subsequent claims for compensation to be dealt with under Article L.2216-3 of the general code for local authorities.
The Commission wishes to stress that, at every stage of the procedure laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2679/98, it immediately makes the information which it receives available to all other Member States. This rapid exchange of information should enable these Member States to take the measures they consider necessary to inform their economic operators of the difficulties they might encounter on French territory.
(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/211
(2000/C 280 E/250) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0394/00 by Marielle de Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(8 February 2000)
Subject: Request for information on two complaints lodged with the Commission against certain provisions of the French Law of 27 July 1999 establishing universal health cover
The French Parliament has adopted a law, promulgated on 27 July 1999, one purpose of which is to introduce complementary health cover for the least well-off. This complementary health cover can be obtained either from a ‘complementary organisation’, i.e. a mutual society, an insurance company or provident institution, or from a sickness insurance fund.
Examination of the legislative texts reveals that these two categories of provider of this complementary service are not treated equally by the Law of 27 July 1999. Two provisions appear contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
Firstly, the law stipulates that complementary organisations in the private sector must pay a 1,75 % levy on their contributions, in order to finance a fund to finance universal health cover, whereas sickness insurance funds are not subject to that levy.
Secondly, the law stipulates that refunds of amounts committed by complementary organisations will be capped at FF 1500 per year per person covered, whereas all expenditure committed by sickness insurance funds will be covered, without capping, by the universal health cover fund.
Given that complementary organisations must say by 31 March 2000 whether or not they will be taking part in this scheme, and to ensure that they do not run the risk of suffering irreparable harm, it is essential that they be quickly given clarification concerning conformity of the Law of 27 July 1999 with Community provisions. Accordingly, can the Commission provide information on the procedure put in hand, and on its position, with regard to the issues raised, and say when an official reply might be forthcoming?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(6 March 2000)
The Honourable Member has requested information on the procedure put in hand by the Commission following two complaints lodged against the Law of 27 July 1999 on universal health cover and would like to know whether the Commission views as compatible with the Community rules two provisions of the said Law which appear to treat sickness insurance funds more favourably than the providers of complementary health cover.
As regards the procedure, the Commission asked the French Government for details so that it could collect all the information needed for an assessment of the legislation concerned. The French authorities replied that in their view the arrangements introduced by the Law in question were based on the principle of national solidarity and did not therefore constitute a competitive economic activity within the meaning of the EC Treaty. The complainant has recently provided additional information on this subject and has drawn attention to aspects other than those mentioned by the Honourable Member, with the result that the situation is being assessed in the light of the competition rules and not simply the rules on state aid.
It will be difficult to assess the economic nature of the complementary health cover arrangements introduced by the French Government, given that several types of agency are involved in the practical application of those arrangements.
This being the case, the Commission should take a stance within the next few months. It has informed the complainant that every effort will be made to adopt a position within a year of the complaint being lodged. C 280 E/212 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/251) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0404/00 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(8 February 2000)
Subject: Equal treatment for men and women
According to the Eurostat report for 1999, it will be a long time before women at the European workplace obtain the same remuneration as men, conditions for Greek women being the least favourable among those of women in Europe.
What measures will the Commission take to secure compliance with, and implementation of, the principle of equality and equal remuneration for men and women doing the same or equivalent jobs in all Member States, particularly in Greece?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(1 March 2000)
The principle of equal pay for male and female workers for the same work or work of equal value has been laid down in Community law since the Treaty of Rome (Article 141 (ex-Article 119) of the EC Treaty). It was also the subject of a specific directive, Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (1), which was transposed in all the Member States, including Greece.
These various provisions resulted in an extensive case law of the Court of Justice, which gave a very wide interpretation of the concept of ‘pay’. Despite these provisions and case law it is well known, as the Honourable Member emphasised, that pay inequalities between men and women are still considerable. That is why the Commission adopted a Code of Conduct in 1996 with the aim of improving conditions in order to ensure equal pay. This Code is meant to be instrumental in promoting the principle of equal pay in practice.
The Commission would also point out that the Court has recognised for quite some time that Article 141 of the EC Treaty has direct effect, enabling any female worker who considers herself to be a victim of discrimination to refer to this article before a national court.
Consequently, as a result of the current problems, and taking into consideration all the juridical guarantees already afforded by Community law, the Commission does not envisage at present any other legislative initiatives with regard to the principle of equal pay.
The Commission would, however, once again like to point out to the Honourable Member that since 1999 the objective to reduce pay inequalities between men and women has been an integral part of the guidelines for the Member States’ employment policies. Within this context, the latter have undertaken to adopt measures aimed at promoting equal pay for men and women.
(1) OJ L 45, 19.2.1975.
(2000/C 280 E/252) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0413/00 by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 February 2000)
Subject: French lorry drivers’ industrial action
Industrial action by French lorry drivers is severely threatening Scottish fishermen, as the goods need to reach their market in fresh condition, preferably within hours of being caught. Once again, however, the French Government seems to sit idly by while the British rural community suffers. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/213
Would the Commission consider action against the French Government for tolerating what has been going on for months now and is clearly a hindrance to the functioning of the single market, is a breach of competition rules and could be considered as blatant protectionism?
Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(2 March 2000)
The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission’s attention to the serious economic impact on Community businesses of the border blockades by French lorry drivers, particularly during the last few weeks.
The Commission would like to stress that under Community law it is the responsibility of the Member States to take all necessary and proportionate measures to restore the free movement of goods in their territory when events of this nature take place.
With regard to the measures the Commission is entitled to take, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States (1), which allows the Commission to take rapid action in this type of situation.
This action can, initially, take the form of a request for information sent to the Member State on whose territory the obstacles occur. Indeed, the Commission used this option when hauliers took action on 10-11 January 2000 and from 31 January 2000 to 1 February 2000. On each occasion, the Commission received information from the French authorities on the state of the dispute and on the measures taken to avoid blockades within the given time limit of two days.
Subsequent Commission action can take the form of a notification requesting the Member State to take all necessary and proportionate measures to restore the free movement of goods within a given time limit. The Commission has not yet made use of this second option. During the recent disputes, it was not needed because the border blockades were lifted. However, the Commission reserves the right to use this option whenever warranted by the situation.
The Commission would like to stress that it would not take any action other than that provided for by Regulation (EC) No 2679/98, since it is not within its remit to intermediate in any social problems within the Member States which might result in action of the type causing the obstacles to which the Honourable Member refers.
(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.
(2000/C 280 E/253) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0433/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(23 February 2000)
Subject: Prevention of damage to the muscles and bone structure of school-age children
In Italy, there is increasing concern on the part of parents of children of compulsory school age with regard to the weight of the school-bags used to carry books to and from school. Regional and local health authorities have circulated scientific findings and practical advice to help avoid the risks associated with carrying excessively heavy school-bags.
In view of the foregoing:
1. Do studies and analyses of this problem exist at Community level?
2. Do standards based on scientific and technical information exist in the other Member States? C 280 E/214 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
3. In view of the information available to it, does the Commission consider that it would be appropriate to propose harmonised rules with a view to providing families with accurate information with regard to preventing muscular and skeletal disorders as a result of carrying school-bags, whose weight should not exceed an acceptable limit?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(23 March 2000)
The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that there is a need to prevent musculo-skeletal problems from an early age.
1. At the European level a number of studies on osteo-musculo disorders have already been carried out or are currently underway in the context of the Community research programmes. These projects cover a range of important issues but not yet the specific item in question. Further research would therefore be needed to determine the risk and to suggest possible solutions. Under the programme area ‘Quality of life chronic and degenerative disorders’ such research could be eligible for Community support.
2. and 3. The Commission is not aware of any standards that exist on this matter, and it has no plans to put forward proposals for harmonised rules.
(2000/C 280 E/254) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0435/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(23 February 2000)
Subject: Commission proposal on the European Parliament in the planned reform of the Treaties
In the document approved by the European Commission pursuant to Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union for the Intergovernmental Conference to amend the Treaties, it is proposed that the number of Members of the European Parliament be maintained at 700, as established in Article 189 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, and that a number of Members may be elected from lists presented throughout the Union. If these proposals were approved, nations without states and European peoples such as Galicia, whom I represent, having stood for a specific list, and others in states like Spain, the United Kingdom and Belgium, which have their own specific national political parties, would suffer, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in terms of their representation in Parliament and their participation in the European institutions.
Has the Commission given due consideration to this issue, which concerns the political and cultural diversity of Europe, for which due respect must be shown? Does the Commission intend to consider alternative proposals aimed at solving this serious problem?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(10 March 2000)
In its Opinion on the Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reform (1), the Commission argued that the Community would greatly benefit if a number of Members of the European Parliament were elected from European lists. Even if this suggestion were taken up, the vast majority of Members would continue to be elected in national constituencies. In this respect the Commission felt that it was for Parliament itself to propose new arrangements for allocating seats. It would also point out that the way in which different components of a Member State are represented in the European Parliament depends largely on the electoral system used, and that under Article 190(4) (formerly Article 138) of the EC Treaty it is the prerogative of Parliament to devise a uniform electoral procedure for the elections.
(1) Adapting the institutions to make a success of enlargement, Commission Opinion in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union on the calling of a Conference of Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to amend the Treaties, COM(00) 34 final. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/215
(2000/C 280 E/255) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0456/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission
(24 February 2000)
Subject: Answer to Written Question E-1877/99: structural policy labour market
With reference to the answer to Written Question E-1877/99 (1) given on 20 December 1999, I would put the following additional questions:
1. On what data was the answer to point 5 based (information on Austria)?
2. Which national authority collects the data on the labour market in connection with the funding provided by the EU Structural Funds?
3. Are the 2 100 new jobs created in Burgenland, a region coming under Objective l, short-term, medium-term or long-term?
4. How many of the 2 100 new jobs are full-time and how many part-time?
5. What criteria or definitions does the Commission use to distinguish between short-term, medium-term and long-term jobs?
6. In which sectors or branches of the economy were these new jobs created?
7. On what studies, statistics or other evidence is the Commission basing its statement that 5 800 jobs have been saved by the use of funding from the Structural Funds in the Objective 1 region of Burgenland?
8. How can the Commission prove that these jobs would have been lost but for the use of funding from the EU Structural Funds?
(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 78.
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(28 March 2000)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(2000/C 280 E/256) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0457/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission
(24 February 2000)
Subject: ESF written question E-1877/99
Further to its answer of 20 December 1999 to written question E-1877/99 (1), will the Commission now state:
1. What job-creation measures have been introduced throughout Europe with the ESF’s EUR 43 000 million, and whether it has data showing precisely how many jobs use of this money has helped to create or save?
2. What measures have been introduced in Austria using ESF transfers, and how many jobs such measures have created and/or saved? C 280 E/216 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
In Burgenland, an Objective 1 region, 6000 people had taken part in ESF-financed training schemes by the end of 1998.
What were these training schemes?
Does the Commission have data proving that more people found work as a result of such schemes?
How many of the people who took part in training schemes co-financed by the ESF have been able to find work again?
(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 78.
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(28 March 2000)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(2000/C 280 E/257) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0458/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission
(24 February 2000)
Subject: Structural policy and employment
In its answer of 20 December 1999 to written question E-1877/99 (1) concerning studies of the effect of Structural Funds transfers on employment, the Commission says ‘It is, therefore, not possible to provide figures on total impact of the funds on job creation’.
The Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of the Regions of the European Union (SEC(99) 66 final), states as regards the relevant models for assessing the performance of Structural Funds transfers that ‘Both are very strong assumptions to make and, in reality, it is not possible to know what would have happened in the absence of Union support.’ (p. 155).
1. Is this confirmation by the Commission that there are no scientifically based studies capable of demonstrating the link between the use of Structural Funds transfers and employment?
2. What means of assessment do the Commission and/or the relevant national departments use in order nevertheless to provide details of newly created jobs or jobs that have been saved?
3. What methods do the Commission and/or the relevant national departments use in order to be able to provide information on planned new jobs?
(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 78.
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(28 March 2000)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible. 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/217
(2000/C 280 E/258) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0493/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(24 February 2000)
Subject: Proper execution of an invitation to tender for the supply of meal vouchers, issued by the Italian Ministry of the Treasury
1. Can the Commission check whether the invitation to tender issued by the Italian Ministry of the Treasury (Government Stationery Office) in December 1998 for the supply of meal vouchers for ministerial employees was properly executed?
The tender was to the value of ITL 180 billion on an annual basis, to be split into three equal parts.
2. Is the Commission aware of the fact that, further to the decision by the Regional Administrative Tribunal (TAR) to uphold the allegations of the unsuccessful companies and to suspend the award of the contract, and following the refusal by the Court of Auditors to give its seal of approval to the tender documents, the Italian Ministry of the Treasury cancelled the invitation to tender, issuing a new one to the value of ITL 180 billion, to be divided into three parts on a renewable yearly basis?
Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(23 March 2000)
The Commission would be particularly grateful to the honourable Member if he could forward the information he has on the infringements of Community law on public contracts that are alleged to have occurred in connection with the invitation to tender issued by the Ministry of Finance in Italy.
The Commission has no knowledge of any facts that would allow it to contact the relevant Italian authorities to check that the procedure in question complied with the provisions referred to above.
On the basis of the information that the honourable Member will be kind enough to provide, the Commission will launch an investigation to see if there are any infringements of Community law on public contracts and to take any action laid down in the EC Treaty that proves necessary in order to ensure, if need be, that the procedure in question again complies with Community law on public contracts.
(2000/C 280 E/259) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0545/00 by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(28 February 2000)
Subject: British stamp duty discriminating against British businesses
Bearing in mind one of the principles of the treaties, i.e. that there must be no discrimination between citizens of the European Union, is it legal for the British Government to levy stamp duty on individual transactions in shares in British companies but to allow transactions in shares in non-British companies to be exempt from stamp duty?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(6 April 2000)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible. C 280 E/218 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
(2000/C 280 E/260) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(29 February 2000)
Subject: EU respect for powers and responsibilities
Please indicate in the occasions on which the European Court of Justice has found the Union to be acting ultra vires (i.e. exceeding its powers).
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(7 April 2000)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(2000/C 280 E/261) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0667/00 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 February 2000)
Subject: Set-aside premiums for RWE and Rheinbraun (Germany)
1. Is it true that the German undertakings RWE and Rheinbraun have received EU set-aside premiums for land on which brown coal is being mined?
2. If so, on what legal basis, for what period and in what amount have the premiums been paid?
3. If so, were the payments made once only, or are they continuing?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(27 March 2000)
1. As regards payments mentioned by the Honourable Member there is actually no knowledge that such payments have been made or are being made in relation to the companies RWE or Rheinbraun.
Set-aside payments for surfaces, which are currently subject to open-cast-mining would contravene the relevant Community legislation. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 762/94 laying down the detailed rules thereof (2) provide for the requirements in connection with the set-aside of land. Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the latter Regulation, among others, states clearly that such area must be cared for so as to maintain good cropping conditions. Moreover, such area must not be put to any lucrative use incompa- tible with the growing of an arable crop. Using an area for the open-cast-mining of brown coal would, in fact, lead to the disappearance of the land in question and would, therefore, obviously be incompatible with these conditions.
Given this legal framework the German authorities would therefore be barred from paying aid for set-aside for such land. It falls within the competence of the Member States’ authorities to check whether an aid application for set-aside payments meets the conditions under the relevant Community legislation. Like the other Member States, Germany (in this case Northrhine-Westphalia) is bound under the regulations establishing an integrated administration and control system (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (3) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 (4)) to submit all area aid applications to an administrative control. Moreover, at least 5 % of the applications have to be controlled on the spot. Applications 3.10.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/219
subjected to an on-the-spot check have to be selected by the relevant authorities on the basis of a risk analysis and an element of representativeness of the aid applications submitted.
The Commission has asked the German authorities to further look into this question and to report back their finding to the Commission. The Commission will, subsequently, inform the Parliament of the results.
2. and 3. It will be necessary to wait and see what the answer of the German authorities will be.
(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992. (2) OJ L 90, 7.4.1994. (3) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992. (4) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992.
(2000/C 280 E/262) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0773/00 by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission
(9 March 2000)
Subject: Importing reindeer meat from Russia to countries in the EU
According to information received by the Finnish Reindeer Herders’ Association, the EU Standing Veterinary Committee made a decision of principle on 12 January 2000 (amending Decision 97/217/ EC) (1) on the import of reindeer meat from the Kola Peninsula area of Russia. Until now, the import of meat from Russia has been prevented because the country is defined as a foot-and-mouth disease region and because of substandard abattoir and meat handling conditions. Representatives of the EU Standing Veterinary Committee made a tour of inspection to the Kola Peninsula concerning this matter.
Does the Commission know whether the tour of inspection, that affected the preparation of the issue and decision made by the Standing Veterinary Committee, was made in impartial conditions; did the Commission check the monitoring of disease, meat handling and quality testing, and did the Commission clarify the possibilities of creating an outside monitoring system by which the origin of reindeer meat can be reliably proven in all cases?
(1) OJ L 88, 3.4.1997, p. 20.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(28 March 2000)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0179/00 by Mr Seppänen during question time at Parliament’s March 2000 part-session (1).
(1) Debates of the European Parliament (March 2000).
(2000/C 280 E/263) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0829/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 March 2000)
Subject: Field margin regulations leading to environmental damage
More than 50 % of the field margins in my constituency (the South West of England) are over two metres. The Commission and the Court of Auditors have recently instructed MAFF to reduce the amount of subsidies given to farmers whose field margins are over two metres. If farmers in the south-west do not wish to lose an average of £969 per year, they will have to plough right up to, and possibly cut back, their C 280 E/220 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.10.2000
hedges. This will damage wildlife and remove land vital for preventing soil erosion on steep fields. It will run counter to the environmental goals adopted by the EU. The UK has asked the Commission to increase the ‘set-aside’ margin to three metres for the UK. In the interests of promoting environmental conservation, will the Commission agree to rethink its approach, at least in the case of farmers who have traditionally maintained wide field margins?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (29 March 2000) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(2000/C 280 E/264) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0929/00 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Set aside premiums for the German firms RWE and Rheinbraun 1. Is it the case that the German firms RWE and Rheinbraun have received EU set aside premiums for brown coal mining? 2. If so, what sums have been paid, in accordance with what legal basis and for what period?
3. If so, were these one-off payments, or are they continuing?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (31 March 2000) The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-0667/00.
The Commission would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the answer it has already given to that question (1).
(1) See page 218.