Official Journal C 225 E Volume 43 of the European Communities 8 August 2000

ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C 225 E Volume 43 of the European Communities 8 August 2000

English edition Information and Notices

Notice No Contents Page

I (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2000/C 225 E/001) E-1429/99 by Dana Scallon to the Commission Subject: Rail links in the island of Ireland ...... 1

(2000/C 225 E/002) E-1433/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Allocation of Structural Fund resources within Spain (Supplementary Answer) ...... 2

(2000/C 225 E/003) E-1516/99 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Noise pollution from Malpensa 2000 airport ...... 3

(2000/C 225 E/004) P-1548/99 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Articles of precious metals ...... 3

(2000/C 225 E/005) E-1614/99 by Marianne Thyssen to the Commission Subject: European standard for PCBs ...... 4

(2000/C 225 E/006) E-1647/99 by John Bowis to the Commission Subject: Airport damage to special protection area ...... 5

(2000/C 225 E/007) E-1675/99 by Marialiese Flemming to the Commission Subject: Exotic animals ...... 6

(2000/C 225 E/008) E-1697/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Violation of Directive 91/271/EEC concerning the designation of vulnerable areas in the Gulf of Elefsina. 7

(2000/C 225 E/009) E-1702/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Draft budget 2000 expenditure relating to persons working with the Commission ...... 8

(2000/C 225 E/010) E-1703/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Draft budget 2000 expenditure resulting from special functions carried out by the Commission .... 8 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 225 E/011) E-1706/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Draft budget 2000 Staff and administrative expenditure in European Community delegations and decentralised expenditure on support staff and administration ...... 9 Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-1702/99, E-1703/99 and E-1706/99 9 (2000/C 225 E/012) E-1713/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Sweden’s competitive disadvantage in egg production ...... 10 (2000/C 225 E/013) E-1714/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Climate subsidy for egg producers ...... 11 (2000/C 225 E/014) E-1715/99 by Lucio Manisco to the Commission Subject: Internet surveillance by American secret services ...... 12 (2000/C 225 E/015) E-1720/99 by Gary Titley to the Commission Subject: Minimum standards for crash helmets for high-speed watercraft ...... 13 (2000/C 225 E/016) P-1725/99 by Jan Mulder to the Commission Subject: Implementing the nitrate directive ...... 14 (2000/C 225 E/017) E-1736/99 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Allocation of rural development aid to Portugal ...... 15 (2000/C 225 E/018) E-1759/99 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler to the Commission Subject: Commission policy (DG VIII) on combating poverty in developing countries ...... 16 (2000/C 225 E/019) E-1771/99 by Horst Schnellhardt to the Commission Subject: Structural Fund programme approvals made subject to area notifications pursuant to the Flora, Fauna and Habitats (FFH) and Bird Protection Directive ...... 18 (2000/C 225 E/020) E-1774/99 by Hugues Martin to the Commission Subject: Compliance with Community rules in the footwear sector ...... 19 (2000/C 225 E/021) E-1781/99 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: Maritime accident investigations ...... 20 (2000/C 225 E/022) E-1793/99 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the Commission Subject: Ban on antifouling paints containing copper ...... 21 (2000/C 225 E/023) E-1808/99 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Notified bodies ...... 22 (2000/C 225 E/024) P-1813/99 by Samuli Pohjamo to the Commission Subject: Selection of areas for EU aid in Finland ...... 23 (2000/C 225 E/025) E-1819/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: ‘Europe against Cancer’ programme (Supplementary Answer) ...... 24 (2000/C 225 E/026) E-1824/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Breaches of environmental and safety legislation by the river Umia dam scheme in Galicia ...... 25 (2000/C 225 E/027) P-1826/99 by Robert Evans to the Commission Subject: International child abduction ...... 25 (2000/C 225 E/028) E-1831/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Allocation of funds for agricultural development for 2000-2006 ...... 26 (2000/C 225 E/029) P-1845/99 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission Subject: Products of protected designation of origin (PDI) and protected geographical indication (PGI) private certification bodies freedom of competition ...... 27 (2000/C 225 E/030) E-1893/99 by Gérard Deprez to the Commission Subject: Food safety ...... 29 (2000/C 225 E/031) E-1895/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: MEDIA II programme training (1996-2000) ...... 30 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 225 E/032) P-1919/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Cuts in Ekpizo funds ...... 31 (2000/C 225 E/033) E-1927/99 by Reino Paasilinna to the Commission Subject: Criteria for respect for minority rights ...... 32 (2000/C 225 E/034) E-1935/99 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Commission staff ...... 33 (2000/C 225 E/035) P-1949/99 by W.G. van Velzen to the Commission Subject: Dealing with the millennium bug ...... 34 (2000/C 225 E/036) E-1959/99 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Phare ...... 35 (2000/C 225 E/037) E-1964/99 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Impact of the Schengen visa on competition ...... 37 (2000/C 225 E/038) E-1966/99 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: EU project ‘Natura 2000’ Repercussions on the situation of individuals under private law ...... 38 (2000/C 225 E/039) E-1968/99 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Commission Subject: Definition of peat in the Directive on the taxation of energy products ...... 39 (2000/C 225 E/040) E-1980/99 by Markus Ferber to the Commission Subject: Polish tariffs on yoghurt imported from the EU ...... 40 (2000/C 225 E/041) E-2029/99 by Béatrice Patrie to the Commission Subject: Community subsidies for school milk ...... 42 (2000/C 225 E/042) E-2054/99 by Gérard Caudron to the Commission Subject: Abolition of European aid payments for the distribution of milk in schools ...... 42 Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-2029/99 and E-2054/99 ...... 43 (2000/C 225 E/043) E-2047/99 by Jeffrey Titford to the Commission Subject: Number of stars on the European Union flag ...... 43 (2000/C 225 E/044) E-2055/99 by Paul Lannoye to the Commission Subject: Addition of imidacloprid to Annex I of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 ...... 44 (2000/C 225 E/045) E-2059/99 by Karin Scheele to the Commission Subject: Decommissioning of Bohunice nuclear power station ...... 45 (2000/C 225 E/046) E-2063/99 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Inequality in the treatment of EU citizens in the welfare sector ...... 45 (2000/C 225 E/047) E-2066/99 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission Subject: Private storage aid for cheese under Regulation (EEC) No 2659/94 ...... 46 (2000/C 225 E/048) E-2087/99 by Dirk Sterckx to the Commission Subject: Application of the Packaging Directive to ornamental plant growing ...... 48 (2000/C 225 E/049) P-2089/99 by Marco Cappato to the Commission Subject: Right of asylum for EU nationals in other Member States or in third countries ...... 49 (2000/C 225 E/050) E-2093/99 by Alexander Radwan to the Commission Subject: Reduction of the areas eligible for assistance in West Germany including Berlin ...... 51 (2000/C 225 E/051) E-2101/99 by Amalia Sartori, Antonio Tajani, Mario Mantovani, Giorgio Lisi, Francesco Musotto, Giuseppe Gargani, Luigi Cesaro, Guido Podestà, Mario Mauro and Francesco Fiori to the Commission Subject: Rejection by the Commission of Italy’s proposal relating to Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for the 2000-2006 period ...... 52 (2000/C 225 E/052) E-2105/99 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: New methods for finding persons trapped inside the wreckage of buildings ...... 53 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 225 E/053) E-2123/99 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba to the Commission Subject: Objective 2 for the 2000-2006 period and the reasons for the rejection of Italy’s proposals ...... 53 (2000/C 225 E/054) E-2124/99 by Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: The United Kingdom and the transposition of the Community directives relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles ...... 54 (2000/C 225 E/055) P-2127/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Upholding the law of competition in the canvassing for sponsors for EURO 2000 ...... 56 (2000/C 225 E/056) E-2135/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Abolition of tax-free shopping and the impact on jobs ...... 57 (2000/C 225 E/057) E-2141/99 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Consulting operators in the AL-Invest Programme ...... 58 (2000/C 225 E/058) E-2143/99 by Guido Viceconte to the Commission Subject: Serious damage to chestnut groves in various parts of Calabria ...... 59 (2000/C 225 E/059) E-2153/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Working conditions and competition at Piaggio ...... 59 (2000/C 225 E/060) E-2160/99 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Responsibility for freedom of movement and public safety ...... 61 (2000/C 225 E/061) P-2164/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Inquiry into rising foreign exchange costs ...... 61 (2000/C 225 E/062) E-2168/99 by Gerhard Schmid to the Commission Subject: Teleworking centres in Bavaria ...... 62 (2000/C 225 E/063) E-2169/99 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Kerosene tax in civil aviation ...... 63 (2000/C 225 E/064) E-2172/99 by Salvador Jové Peres to the Commission Subject: Investment aid for flax processing ...... 64 (2000/C 225 E/065) E-2173/99 by Salvador Jové Peres to the Commission Subject: Olive oil stocks ...... 65 (2000/C 225 E/066) E-2177/99 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Property speculation at Is Arenas ...... 66 (2000/C 225 E/067) P-2182/99 by Jorge Moreira Da Silva to the Commission

Subject: CO2 emissions in Portugal ...... 67 (2000/C 225 E/068) E-2185/99 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: Ban on tourist coaches by Rome municipal authorities ...... 69 (2000/C 225 E/069) E-2188/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Review of the Bosman ruling ...... 70 (2000/C 225 E/070) E-2202/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Commission initiatives on the rights of consumers entering into contracts with airlines ...... 71 (2000/C 225 E/071) E-2204/99 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: Agreements in the air transport sector and compliance with competition rules ...... 71 (2000/C 225 E/072) E-2205/99 by Astrid Lulling to the Commission Subject: Searches carried out at the homes of Belgian frontier workers employed in Luxembourg’s banking sector 73 (2000/C 225 E/073) E-2214/99 by Cristiana Muscardini and Sergio Berlato to the Commission Subject: Oilseed sector and the Millennium Round ...... 73 (2000/C 225 E/074) E-2217/99 by Massimo Carraro and Paolo Costa to the Commission Subject: Measures to assist Venice ...... 74 (2000/C 225 E/075) E-2222/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Key features of the work test ...... 75 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 225 E/076) E-2233/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Capital flows into Switzerland ...... 76 (2000/C 225 E/077) E-2236/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Replacement rates ...... 77 (2000/C 225 E/078) P-2247/99 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: The Structural Funds and regional assistance ...... 77 (2000/C 225 E/079) E-2250/99 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Flight delays ...... 78 (2000/C 225 E/080) E-2252/99 by Pedro Marset Campos to the Commission Subject: Environmental deterioration in Arce (Piélagos-Cantabria, Spain) ...... 79 (2000/C 225 E/081) E-2254/99 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Geographical origin of quality products ...... 81 (2000/C 225 E/082) E-2273/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Intercountry adoptions ...... 82 (2000/C 225 E/083) E-2275/99 by Vittorio Sgarbi to the Commission Subject: European rules on amusement arcades ...... 83 (2000/C 225 E/084) P-2278/99 by Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza to the Commission Subject: Aid to the shipbuilding industry ...... 84 (2000/C 225 E/085) P-2281/99 by Ursula Stenzel to the Commission Subject: Enlargement strategy and nuclear safety ...... 85 (2000/C 225 E/086) P-2284/99 by Samuli Pohjamo to the Commission Subject: Use of material classified as waste in Finland ...... 86 (2000/C 225 E/087) E-2287/99 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the Commission Subject: Right to freedom of movement and Danish tax rules ...... 87 (2000/C 225 E/088) E-2292/99 by Reinhold Messner to the Commission Subject: Extension of licences to operate motorways in Italy ...... 88 (2000/C 225 E/089) E-2293/99 by Reinhold Messner to the Commission Subject: Extension of the licence granted to the Italian company Autostrade SpA ...... 89 (2000/C 225 E/090) P-2297/99 by Dorette Corbey to the Commission Subject: Gas production in the Waddenzee ...... 91 (2000/C 225 E/091) P-2301/99 by Jan Mulder to the Commission Subject: Implementation of the nitrates directive (No 91/676/EEC) ...... 92 (2000/C 225 E/092) E-2306/99 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Extermination of the hawksbill sea turtle? ...... 93 (2000/C 225 E/093) E-2308/99 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Mont Blanc Tunnel ...... 94 (2000/C 225 E/094) E-2309/99 by Carmen Fraga Estévez to the Commission Subject: Imports of products under tariff heading 1604.14.00 ...... 95 (2000/C 225 E/095) E-2310/99 by Carmen Fraga Estévez to the Commission Subject: Exports of tuna fillets to the EU ...... 95 (2000/C 225 E/096) P-2315/99 by Pat Gallagher to the Commission Subject: Financial aid to Mali and, in particular, to the Itema company ...... 96 (2000/C 225 E/097) P-2317/99 by James Fitzsimons to the Commission Subject: New controls on the sale of St. John’s Wort ...... 97 (2000/C 225 E/098) E-2320/99 by Freddy Blak to the Commission Subject: Injuries caused by using a mouse ...... 98 (2000/C 225 E/099) E-2321/99 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: European civilian and solidarity service ...... 99 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 225 E/100) E-2322/99 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the EC and the Argentine Republic . . . 100 (2000/C 225 E/101) E-2323/99 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the EC and the People’s Republic of China 100 (2000/C 225 E/102) E-2324/99 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the EC and the Russian Federation .... 101 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2322/99, E-2323/99 and E-2324/99 ...... 101 (2000/C 225 E/103) E-2326/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Import of steel of dubious quality for use in reinforced concrete ...... 102 (2000/C 225 E/104) E-2328/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Health problems arising from the operation of an olive kernel oil plant in Iraklion (Crete) ...... 103 (2000/C 225 E/105) E-2332/99 by Alejandro Cercas to the Commission Subject: Innovative actions increasing transactional business by European SMEs accessing third markets (call for proposals 98/C 219/13) ...... 104 (2000/C 225 E/106) E-2333/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Measures for the benefit of disabled people who practise sport and use IT networks ...... 104 (2000/C 225 E/107) P-2334/99 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission Subject: Infringement of anti-trust rules in connection with the certification of PDI and PGI products ...... 105 (2000/C 225 E/108) E-2335/99 by Rolf Linkohr to the Commission Subject: Nuclear reactors in the applicant countries ...... 106 (2000/C 225 E/109) E-2337/99 by Anna Karamanou to the Commission Subject: Potentially fatal health hazards arising from exposure to microwave radiation from mobile telephones . . 107 (2000/C 225 E/110) E-2341/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Reopening of the oncological hospital in Kifisia ...... 108 (2000/C 225 E/111) E-2342/99 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: 1998 Football World Cup Finals ...... 109 (2000/C 225 E/112) E-2343/99 by Robert Evans to the Commission Subject: Aflatoxin fungus ...... 109 (2000/C 225 E/113) E-2344/99 by Salvador Jové Peres and Pedro Marset Campos to the Commission Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco ...... 110 (2000/C 225 E/114) E-2345/99 by Salvador Jové Peres and Pedro Marset Campos to the Commission Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco ...... 110 (2000/C 225 E/115) E-2346/99 by Salvador Jové Peres and Pedro Marset Campos to the Commission Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco ...... 111 (2000/C 225 E/116) E-2347/99 by Salvador Jové Peres and Pedro Marset Campos to the Commission Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco ...... 111 (2000/C 225 E/117) E-2348/99 by Salvador Jové Peres and Pedro Marset Campos to the Commission Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco ...... 111 (2000/C 225 E/118) P-2483/99 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the Commission Subject: Illegal imports of tomatoes from Morocco ...... 111 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2344/99, E-2345/99, E-2346/99, E-2347/99, E-2348/99 and P-2483/99 ...... 112 (2000/C 225 E/119) E-2355/99 by Markus Ferber to the Commission Subject: Standardisation of flight control systems ...... 112 (2000/C 225 E/120) E-2357/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Law on supplementary honorary judges 276/97 ...... 113 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 225 E/121) E-2363/99 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Processing of lead batteries ...... 114 (2000/C 225 E/122) P-2367/99 by Maurizio Turco to the Commission Subject: Budget nomenclature encouraging the practice of false subsidies ...... 115 (2000/C 225 E/123) E-2372/99 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Relaunching of mining activities in north-eastern Halkidiki ...... 115 (2000/C 225 E/124) E-2373/99 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Integrated tourist development in Messinia ...... 117 (2000/C 225 E/125) E-2374/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Implementation of programme for tourism under the CSF for Greece ...... 118 (2000/C 225 E/126) E-2377/99 by Richard Howitt to the Commission Subject: Tied aid ...... 118 (2000/C 225 E/127) E-2383/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Regulation on exclusive purchasing obligations ...... 119 (2000/C 225 E/128) P-2388/99 by Sérgio Marques to the Commission Subject: Banana import arrangements ...... 121 (2000/C 225 E/129) E-2391/99 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Irregularities in the construction of the Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona high speed train link ...... 122 (2000/C 225 E/130) E-2392/99 by Jean-Claude Martinez to the Commission Subject: Lethal flooding in the south of France ...... 122 (2000/C 225 E/131) E-2393/99 by Jean-Claude Martinez to the Council Subject: Lethal flooding in the south of France ...... 123 (2000/C 225 E/132) E-2395/99 by Roberto Bigliardo to the Commission Subject: Restriction on European Commission officials’ freedom of association ...... 124 (2000/C 225 E/133) E-2401/99 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Priority of international law over an EU directive, and compliance with provisions of treaties concerning the ‘Iron Rhine’ ...... 125 (2000/C 225 E/134) E-2403/99 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Proposed EUR 2 million cutback of the Poseima programme ...... 125 (2000/C 225 E/135) E-2406/99 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Senior EURO Pass ...... 126 (2000/C 225 E/136) E-2408/99 by Linda McAvan to the Commission Subject: Reviews of the Animal Transport and the Pig Directives ...... 127 (2000/C 225 E/137) E-2410/99 by Cristina Gutiérrez Cortines to the Commission Subject: The Interreg II Community Initiative: Spanish-Moroccan cooperation ...... 127 (2000/C 225 E/138) E-2411/99 by Cristina Gutiérrez Cortines to the Commission Subject: The Murcia region and the ERDF ...... 128 (2000/C 225 E/139) E-2413/99 by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen to the Commission Subject: Competitive disadvantage and regional aid in Sweden ...... 129 (2000/C 225 E/140) E-2417/99 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: EU sponsorship for digitalising mediaeval manuscripts and incunabula ...... 130 (2000/C 225 E/141) E-2421/99 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the Commission Subject: New directive on honey that penalises beekeepers ...... 131 (2000/C 225 E/142) E-2428/99 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Commission Subject: Exemption of horses used in competitions and sport from rules on veterinary medicine ...... 131 (2000/C 225 E/143) E-2431/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Objective 2 in Lazio ...... 132 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 225 E/144) E-2433/99 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Reform of the banana sector with reference to the WTO panel ...... 133 (2000/C 225 E/145) E-2437/99 by Claude Moraes to the Commission Subject: Right of establishment in the EU for nationals of Central and Eastern Europe countries (CEECs) for the purposes of business or of providing services as self-employed persons ...... 134 (2000/C 225 E/146) E-2445/99 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission Subject: Private inspection bodiesfor PDO and PGI products ...... 135 (2000/C 225 E/147) E-2456/99 by Sergio Berlato and Mauro Nobilia to the Commission Subject: New Holland Case ...... 136 (2000/C 225 E/148) E-2459/99 by Antonio Tajani, Giorgio Lisi, Raffaele Costa, Mario Mauro, Stefano Zappalà, Raffaele Fitto, Renato Brunetta, Enrico Ferri and Amalia Sartori to the Commission Subject: Incompatibility between the role of President of the Commission and election campaigning activities . . . 138 (2000/C 225 E/149) E-2600/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Participation by Commissioners in direct political action by the parties or electoral coalitions to which they belong ...... 138 (2000/C 225 E/150) E-2628/99 by Francesco Speroni, Umberto Bossi and Gian Gobbo to the Commission Subject: Participation of the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, in the Italian election campaign ..... 138 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2459/99, E-2600/99 and E-2628/99 ...... 139 (2000/C 225 E/151) E-2468/99 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Transposition of Directive 91/174/EEC ...... 139 (2000/C 225 E/152) E-2469/99 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Reply to Question E-1056/99 ...... 140 (2000/C 225 E/153) E-2473/99 by Brian Simpson to the Commission Subject: Problems of Air Traffic Control ...... 141 (2000/C 225 E/154) E-2475/99 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Dioxin emission levels of incinerators in the EU ...... 141 (2000/C 225 E/155) E-2477/99 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: LIFE project ...... 142 (2000/C 225 E/156) E-2478/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: ‘Clinic Clowns’: projects to provide psychological help for seriously ill children ...... 143 (2000/C 225 E/157) P-2482/99 by Liam Hyland to the Commission Subject: EU’s response to the crisis in the pigmeat market ...... 144 (2000/C 225 E/158) P-2484/99 by Josu Ortuondo Larrea to the Commission Subject: Information on the phasing-out of vessels using driftnets under Regulation 1239/98 ...... 145 (2000/C 225 E/159) E-2487/99 by Richard Howitt to the Commission Subject: Participation by the Directorate-General for Social Affairs in public procurement policy ...... 146 (2000/C 225 E/160) E-2489/99 by Robert Evans to the Commission Subject: Greek slaughter houses ...... 147 (2000/C 225 E/161) P-2494/99 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Protection of wild salmon stocks in the Tornionjoki (Torneälv) river ...... 148 (2000/C 225 E/162) P-2495/99 by Robert Sturdy to the Commission Subject: Legal certainty in the information society ...... 149 (2000/C 225 E/163) P-2497/99 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: The Millennium Round, the ultraperipheral regions and changes in the COM in bananas ...... 150 (2000/C 225 E/164) P-2499/99 by María Izquierdo Rojo to the Commission Subject: Medi Telecom ...... 151 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 225 E/165) P-2500/99 by Françoise Grossetête to the Commission Subject: Common system of value-added tax the place where services are supplied ...... 151 (2000/C 225 E/166) P-2751/99 by Françoise Grossetête to the Commission Subject: Harmonisation of national legislation turnover tax ...... 152 Joint answer to Written Questions P- 2500/99 and P-2751/99 ...... 153 (2000/C 225 E/167) P-2501/99 by Giorgio Celli to the Commission Subject: Messina ‘territorial pact’ ...... 153 (2000/C 225 E/168) E-2508/99 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the Council Subject: Trade ...... 154 (2000/C 225 E/169) E-2511/99 by María Sornosa Martínez and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the Commission Subject: Infringement of the principle of sex equality in chess tournaments within the European Union ...... 154 (2000/C 225 E/170) E-2514/99 by Pedro Marset Campos to the Commission Subject: Siting, in a rural tourism area (Abarán, in the Murcia area of Spain), of a waste water purification plant financed by means of the EU’s Leader II programme and the Spanish Government’s Future programme ...... 155 (2000/C 225 E/171) P-2522/99 by Niels Busk to the Commission Subject: Sprat catches ...... 156 (2000/C 225 E/172) P-2523/99 by Minerva Malliori to the Commission Subject: Chernobyl ...... 156 (2000/C 225 E/173) P-2527/99 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Collapse of Attica Road Bridge ...... 157 (2000/C 225 E/174) E-2532/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: European Year of languages and classical studies ...... 158 (2000/C 225 E/175) E-2533/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Harmonisation of Greek maritime law with community legislation ...... 159 (2000/C 225 E/176) E-2535/99 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Inequality under the Austrian law on universities ...... 160 (2000/C 225 E/177) E-2542/99 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Driving regulations for people with diabetes mellitus ...... 161 (2000/C 225 E/178) E-2550/99 by Bill Miller to the Commission Subject: Agenda 2000 ...... 162 (2000/C 225 E/179) E-2553/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: VAT on provision of home care ...... 162 (2000/C 225 E/180) E-2556/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Transmission masts ...... 163 (2000/C 225 E/181) E-2563/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Discrimination in the workplace ...... 163 (2000/C 225 E/182) E-2564/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Recognition of the denturist-denturologist’s diploma under Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC ..... 164 (2000/C 225 E/183) E-2565/99 by Erik Meijer and Alain Krivine to the Commission Subject: Health risks from processing Dutch lead batteries in France ...... 166 (2000/C 225 E/184) P-2566/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Extending the deadline for discontinuing the use of super leaded petrol ...... 168 (2000/C 225 E/185) P-2567/99 by LORD Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) ...... 168 (2000/C 225 E/186) P-2569/99 by Luisa Morgantini to the Commission Subject: Crisis in the SISMA (Società Industrie Siderurgiche Meccaniche) undertaking in Villadossola, Piedmont . . 169 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 225 E/187) E-2571/99 by W.G. van Velzen to the Council Subject: Secretariat of the Energy Charter ...... 169 (2000/C 225 E/188) E-2573/99 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: Commission reports on veterinary missions carried out in Belgium and Ireland ...... 170 (2000/C 225 E/189) P-2576/99 by Michael Cashman to the Commission Subject: Dietary and natural health products ...... 171 (2000/C 225 E/190) P-2577/99 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Transport of animals ...... 172 (2000/C 225 E/191) P-2582/99 by Malcolm Harbour to the Commission Subject: Business Impact Assessment ...... 173 (2000/C 225 E/192) P-2583/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Travel insurance bundling ...... 174 (2000/C 225 E/193) E-2584/99 by Herbert Bösch to the Commission Subject: BSE pathogens in meat-and-bone meal ...... 175 (2000/C 225 E/194) E-2587/99 by Marialiese Flemming to the Commission Subject: Hunting of migratory birds in Italy ...... 176 (2000/C 225 E/195) E-2589/99 by Richard Corbett to the Commission Subject: Updating of driving licences ...... 177 (2000/C 225 E/196) E-2591/99 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Withholding of the Schengen acquis ...... 178 (2000/C 225 E/197) E-2592/99 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Commissioners’ interests ...... 178 (2000/C 225 E/198) E-2595/99 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Support for IGC report ...... 179 (2000/C 225 E/199) E-2597/99 by Ari Vatanen to the Commission Subject: EU Youth Programme ...... 179 (2000/C 225 E/200) E-2601/99 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Testing the effects of pesticides on environmental management and on pollution ...... 180 (2000/C 225 E/201) E-2602/99 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Access of immigrants who are nationals of other EU Member States to government service posts in Lux- embourg ...... 181 (2000/C 225 E/202) P-2603/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Italy’s postponement of the application of the framework directives on waste ...... 182 (2000/C 225 E/203) P-2606/99 by John Cushnahan to the Commission Subject: Early retirement pension scheme ...... 183 (2000/C 225 E/204) P-2607/99 by Carlo Fatuzzo to the Commission Subject: Telecom Italia S.p.A’s Audiotel services ...... 184 (2000/C 225 E/205) P-2608/99 by Gilles Savary to the Commission Subject: Directive 79/409/EEC Dates of the hunting season ...... 185 (2000/C 225 E/206) E-2610/99 by Karl von Wogau to the Commission Subject: Restriction on freedom of movement because of returned goods rules concerning firearms ...... 185 (2000/C 225 E/207) E-2614/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Irregularities and problems in the allocation and use of financing from Community funds for Katerini General Hospital ...... 186 (2000/C 225 E/208) E-2635/99 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Support for nuclear energy and renewable energies ...... 187 (2000/C 225 E/209) E-2645/99 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Indian leather industry subsidies ...... 187 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 225 E/210) P-2659/99 by Othmar Karas to the Commission Subject: Impact on hunting of the designation of the Hohe Tauern (A) National Park as a Natura 2000 site .... 188 (2000/C 225 E/211) E-2666/99 by Francis Decourrière to the Commission Subject: Directive 92/43/EEC ...... 189 (2000/C 225 E/212) E-2671/99 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: Cards for EU citizens entering Italy ...... 190 (2000/C 225 E/213) E-2675/99 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Commission policy on takeovers ...... 190 (2000/C 225 E/214) E-2681/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Statements by the Spanish government on the unresolved issue of state aid to the electricity sector .... 191 (2000/C 225 E/215) E-2682/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Decision on an unresolved case concerning state aids ...... 191 (2000/C 225 E/216) E-2684/99 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya to the Commission Subject: Air transport ...... 192 (2000/C 225 E/217) E-2687/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Composition and funding of the Commission President’s communications team ...... 192 (2000/C 225 E/218) P-2692/99 by Ursula Stenzel to the Commission Subject: Conversion of usufruct into ownership ...... 193 (2000/C 225 E/219) P-2695/99 by Ilka Schröder to the Commission Subject: Nuclear programme in Morocco ...... 194 (2000/C 225 E/220) P-2697/99 by Rosa Díez González to the Council Subject: Information on European Union citizens condemned to death ...... 195 (2000/C 225 E/221) E-2704/99 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Transport of animals ...... 196 (2000/C 225 E/222) E-2730/99 by Gérard Deprez to the Commission Subject: Work-related deaths in developing countries ...... 196 (2000/C 225 E/223) E-2739/99 by Stefano Zappalà and Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: Latina-Goodyear affair ...... 197 (2000/C 225 E/224) P-0279/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Closure of the Goodyear plant at Cisterna di Latina (Italy) ...... 198 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2739/99 and P-0279/00 ...... 198 (2000/C 225 E/225) E-2742/99 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Discrimination with regard to the right to the guaranteed minimum income in Luxembourg ...... 199 (2000/C 225 E/226) E-2745/99 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Possible breach of Community law ...... 199 (2000/C 225 E/227) P-2752/99 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Fixing of book prices ...... 200 (2000/C 225 E/228) E-2755/99 by Enrique Barón Crespo, Miguel Martínez Martínez and Carlos Carnero Gon- zález to the Commission Subject: Protecting jobs in the Carrier multinational company in Guadalajara (Spain) in the face of management plans ...... 201 (2000/C 225 E/229) E-2765/99 by Raffaele Costa, Antonio Tajani, Francesco Fiori, Raffaele Fitto, Giorgio Lisi, Mario Mauro, Guido Podestà and Stefano Zappalà to the Commission Subject: The case of Silvia Baraldini payment of a fine ...... 202 (2000/C 225 E/230) P-2772/99 by Nuala Ahern to the Commission Subject: Dumping of BSE contaminated waste by-products ...... 203 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 225 E/231) E-2773/99 by Christos Folias and Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Commission staff recruitment ...... 203 (2000/C 225 E/232) E-2775/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Consolidation of the tourist guide profession in Greece ...... 204 (2000/C 225 E/233) E-2778/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Failure to maintain current job levels at a subsidised plant owned by pasta-producer MISKO ...... 205 (2000/C 225 E/234) E-2779/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Assistance for MISKO company workers forced to relocate ...... 206 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2778/99 and E-2779/99 ...... 206 (2000/C 225 E/235) P-2790/99 by Paul Lannoye to the Commission Subject: Research projects on healthcare systems within the fifth framework-programme ...... 206 (2000/C 225 E/236) P-2791/99 by Luís Queiró to the Commission Subject: German contravention of competition rules ...... 207 (2000/C 225 E/237) E-2792/99 by Ulpu Iivari to the Commission Subject: Targeting of development cooperation projects for implementation in Nicaragua ...... 208 (2000/C 225 E/238) E-2812/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: The Commission’s Office in Milan ...... 209 (2000/C 225 E/239) P-2817/99 by Niels Busk to the Commission Subject: Customs processing of T5 forms ...... 209 (2000/C 225 E/240) P-2860/99 by Rolf Linkohr to the Commission Subject: Rheinfelden power station support for large hydroelectric plants ...... 210 (2000/C 225 E/241) P-2861/99 by Michel Hansenne to the Commission Subject: Common VAT system eighth directive ...... 211 (2000/C 225 E/242) P-2862/99 by Bernard Poignant to the Commission Subject: Erika shipwreck ...... 212 (2000/C 225 E/243) E-2864/99 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Infringement of the ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive in Spain ...... 213 (2000/C 225 E/244) E-2866/99 by Guido Podestà to the Commission Subject: The elderly in the United Kingdom ...... 214 (2000/C 225 E/245) E-0006/00 by Gerhard Schmid to the Commission Subject: Recognition of Commission President Romano Prodi ...... 214 (2000/C 225 E/246) E-0013/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Creation of a Greek service on Euronews ...... 215 (2000/C 225 E/247) P-0041/00 by Marie Isler Béguin to the Commission Subject: Extension of the dock at Escombreras, Murcia (Spain) ...... 215 (2000/C 225 E/248) P-0054/00 by Caroline Lucas to the Commission Subject: Review of Annex H of the sixth VAT Directive ...... 216 (2000/C 225 E/249) P-0055/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the Commission Subject: BSE screening programme ...... 217 (2000/C 225 E/250) P-0099/00 by Francesco Musotto to the Commission Subject: The situation in Croatia following the elections on 3 January 2000 ...... 218 (2000/C 225 E/251) P-0102/00 by Pietro-Paolo Mennea to the Commission Subject: Request for specific recognition of amateur sport ...... 219 (2000/C 225 E/252) E-0112/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Diversion of a high voltage power line in the locality of Merza (Galicia) ...... 220 (2000/C 225 E/253) P-0116/00 by Karl von Wogau to the Commission Subject: Compensation claims from undertakings hit by lorry blockades ...... 220 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 225 E/254) E-0127/00 by Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: Exclusion of the Italian Council for the Disabled Relations with the European Union from the Italian representation on the European Disability Forum ...... 221 (2000/C 225 E/255) P-0133/00 by Frank Vanhecke to the Commission Subject: Commission support for staging political events ...... 222 (2000/C 225 E/256) E-0150/00 by Emmanouil Mastorakis to the Commission Subject: Community Interreg Initiative ...... 222 (2000/C 225 E/257) E-0229/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Failure to include the Prefecture of Arta in the Community initiative Interreg...... 222 (2000/C 225 E/258) E-0336/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Exclusion of the prefecture of Arta from assistance under the Community Interreg 2000-2006 initiative . 223 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0150/00, E-0229/00 and E-0336/00 ...... 223 (2000/C 225 E/259) E-0178/00 by Erik Meijer and Helmuth Markov to the Commission Subject: Discontinuing of train services between the Netherlands and Germany after upgrading of the Nieuweschans Weneer section of the TEN ...... 223 (2000/C 225 E/260) E-0233/00 by Luigi Vinci to the Commission Subject: Restructuring of the group ABB Alstom Power ...... 224 (2000/C 225 E/261) P-0235/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Educational priorities of the Portuguese Presidency ...... 224 (2000/C 225 E/262) E-0247/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Withholding of the premium for tobacco producers for the Community Tobacco Fund ...... 225 (2000/C 225 E/263) P-0304/00 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Delays in completing Cohesion Fund projects in Greece: biological sewage treatment and reorganisation of landfill sites in Thessaloniki ...... 226 (2000/C 225 E/264) P-0391/00 by Maurizio Turco to the Commission Subject: Utilisation of Structural Funds in Italy 1994/1999 ...... 226 (2000/C 225 E/265) E-0427/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Distribution by the Spanish Government of ERDF Objective 1 resources earmarked for Galicia ...... 227 (2000/C 225 E/266) E-0469/00 by Isabelle Caullery to the Commission Subject: European Union measures in the?le-de-France region ...... 227 (2000/C 225 E/267) E-0470/00 by Isabelle Caullery to the Commission Subject: Programmes, Community projects and European initiatives in the Île-de-France region ...... 228 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0469/00 and E-0470/00 ...... 228 (2000/C 225 E/268) P-0475/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Member State violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the consolidated Treaty establishing the European Community ...... 228

EN 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/1

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2000/C 225 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1429/99 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Rail links in the island of Ireland

Social, industrial and tourist activity in Western Ireland requires modern rail links as a means to remedy depopulation and bring about renewed economic life.

What part do the rail needs of Western Ireland play in the strategy of the European Commission for rail links within Ireland and within Europe?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 1999)

Under Article 154 (ex Article 129b) of the EC Treaty the Community contributes to the establishment and development of the trans European network in the field of transport and takes account of the particular need to link island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Community. This objective is reflected in Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (1). The Community recognised the strategic importance of the rail links in the west of Ireland through the identification within Annex I of the guidelines of the conventional rail lines between and to Sligo, Tralee, Galway and Limerick as part of the Trans European network.

European funding of transport infrastructure has in the past five years been focussed on projects on Trans European network routes and hubs in all modes. For rail this has meant significant investment in infrastructure, particularly track and signalling. In western Ireland, 50 % of the £30 million cost of replacement track for the Galway and Sligo lines is being funded by the Community, as well as 85 % of the £4 million cost of resignalling them.

These infrastructure improvements are being complemented by the commissioning of new rolling stock (diesel locomotives and carriages) also supported by the structural funds, which should provide a greater level of comfort and safety for patrons of the service.

Most of western Ireland (the Border, Midlands and Western Region) will continue to receive funding from the European regional development fund (ERDF) as a region with full objective 1 status in the period 2000-2006. The Irish government is at the moment preparing the national development plan, which will form the basis for the negotiations with the Commission for the use of the structural funds in 2000-2006. No doubt infrastructure investments will be one of the major spending priorities under the next round of structural and cohesion funding to further improve the relative position of western Ireland.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996. C 225 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1433/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Allocation of Structural Fund resources within Spain

The Structural Fund and, in particular, the ERDF resources earmarked for investment and received by the Spanish Government for allocation to the country’s Objective 1 Autonomous Communities have not been distributed fairly (not even over such a long reference period as 1994-1999) on the basis of objective criteria such as population size and per capita income. The reason for this is that the government assumes responsibility for directly allocating over 50 % of the resources, which it subsequently invests in accordance with criteria which do not correspond to the purposes which justify the existence of the Structural Funds. The result is a geographical distribution which prevents the resources from achieving the objective assigned to them under Community law. This state of affairs is particularly detrimental to autonomous communities such as Galicia.

What reasons could there be under Community regulations to account for the pursuit of such a policy by the Spanish Government?

Of the Structural Fund (especially ERDF) resources earmarked for productive investment or infrastructure projects, what proportion out of the total allocated to Spain and in relation to the population of Spain’s Objective 1 Autonomous Communities was assigned to Galicia during the 1994-1999 period?

What criteria are to be followed during the 2000-2006 period as regards the distribution of the Structural Fund resources to be allocated to Spain and earmarked for the Objective 1 Autonomous Communities?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

Both the Structural Fund regulation in force until the end of 1999, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1), and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2), which will apply for 2000-2006, state that the Commission, using transparent procedures, is to determine indicative distributions of the commitment appropriations available for Objective 1, taking into account the following criteria: eligible population, regional prosperity, national prosperity and the relative seriousness of the structural problems, in particular the level of unemployment.

On the other hand, it is not for the Commission to decide on the distribution of the appropriations, within a Member State, between eligible regions or between national programmes and regional programmes. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, this is the responsibility of each Member State.

Nevertheless, as a guide for the next programming period, 2000-2006, the Commission has informed the Member States concerned what would be the allocation for each eligible region if they applied at national level the method used by the Commission to distribute the Objective 1 appropriations among the Member States.

During the current programming period, 19941999, the European Regional Development Fund has allocated EUR 370,46 million to Galicia for part-financing productive investment, which represents 12,09 % of the total allocated to all the Objective 1 autonomous communities in Spain (EUR 3 064 million), and EUR 1 183,4 million for creating infrastructure, which also represents 12,09 % of the total allocated to all the Objective 1 autonomous communities in Spain (EUR 9 788 million).

In population terms, Galicia represents 11,67 % of all the Objective 1 autonomous communities in Spain and 6,95 % of Spain as a whole.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. (2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/3

(2000/C 225 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1516/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (1 September 1999)

Subject: Noise pollution from Malpensa 2000 airport

1. Can the Commission say whether or not the dispute between it and the Italian authorities responsible for running Malpensa airport also relates to the issue of noise pollution caused by arriving or departing aircraft which overfly residential areas at low altitude?

2. If it does, has the Commission any information which would enable it to assess the extent to which the quality of life is diminished in the residential areas concerned?

3. If so, have any proposals been draw up with a view to alleviating the problem and to ensuring that the people affected enjoy an acceptable quality of life during the day and, more particularly, during the night?

4. With regard to the question of transferring the remaining flights from Linate airport, should the probable increase in noise pollution stemming from the possible increase in the number of flights not also be taken into account?

5. Under European environmental law, has the EU any powers and responsibilities relating to noise pollution?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (21 October 1999)

The litigation before the Court of justice was introduced by the Italian authorities against the Commission’s decision of 16 September 1998 disapproving Italian decree of 5 July 1996 and 13 October 1997 requiring transfer of all traffic from Linate to Malpensa on 28 October 1998 with the exception of the Milan-Rome route. Such decision was found to be contrary to Community law for violation of the principle of non discrimination and the principle of proportionality. The Italian authorities replaced the litigious decree by a new decree allowing 34 % of European flights to remain at Linate for a temporary period until access infrastructures are improved.

When adopting such measures, Member States must respect all elements of Community law including Community rules adopted in the environmental sector. In the area of aircraft noise, the Community has adopted a number of directives, the latest being Council Directive 92/14/EEC of 2 March 1992 on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes convered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, second edition (1988) (1) which provides that Member States must no longer accept so-called chapter 2 aircraft after 1 April 2002. Existing Community legislation allows Member States to adopt specific operating rules for environmental purposes at Community airports. The Commission is not aware of Italian authorities having adopted such legislation for the Milan airport system.

The Commission is, however, analysing the appropriateness of a Community framework for operating rules at airports targeting the environmental impact. It will present the outcome of this assessment in due course.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(2000/C 225 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1548/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (1 September 1999)

Subject: Articles of precious metals

In October 1993 the Commission recognized that it was not possible to achieve mutual recognition of national practices and submitted a proposal for a directive seeking to harmonize Member State legislation on articles of precious metals (COM(93) 322 final) (1). It is now five years since the proposal for a directive was brought forward. C 225 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Are there still technical barriers to the free movement of articles of precious metals within the Union?

2. If so, what is preventing the removal of such obstacles and the attainment of one of primary objectives of the Treaties?

3. Are there any objective responsibilities or specific desiderata that are delaying harmonization in this sphere?

4. If the obstacles have not been removed, what steps will the Commission take to prevent firms that are in favour of harmonization from being penalized by the lack of free movement for articles of precious metals?

(1) OJ C 318, 25.11.1993, p. 5.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 1999)

As stated by the Commission in its answers to written questions E-3158/98 by Mr Ferrer (1) and E-3431/98 by Mr Valdivieso de Cué (2), several activities have already been launched in order to ensure compliance with the principle of the free movement of jewellery.

Firstly, as stressed by the Honourable Member there is a proposal for a Council and Parliament directive (3) that is intended, in particular, to harmonise the national laws on pieces of precious metal work in order to guarantee their free movement. The proposal is intended to harmonise degrees of fineness, hallmarks and responsibility marks, together with the certification systems (quality assurance, the EC declaration of conformity and checking by third parties).

Under the procedure provided for in Article 251 (former Article 189b) of the EC Treaty, that proposal has already been examined by Parliament on first reading. Conversely, the Council has still not been able to adopt a common position because of the differences of opinion among the Member States with regard to the intended certification procedures.

The version currently under discussion within the Council provides for a compromise solution whereby equivalence would be established between only two of the three certification systems, namely between third-party checking and quality assurance, the EC declaration of conformity system being retained on an optional basis.

Secondly, while awaiting harmonisation at Community level, the Commission has brought infringement actions against most of the Member States in order to bring the national regulations into line with the conclusions of the Court of Justice in its ‘Houtwipper’ judgment (4). The infringement procedures have caused the laws concerned to be amended in most of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 33. (2) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 69. (3) OJ C 318, 25.11.1993, amended version OJ C 209, 29.7.1994. (4) Case 293/93, 15.9.1994.

(2000/C 225 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1614/99 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 September 1999)

Subject: European standard for PCBs

In response to the dioxin crisis, the Belgian government has laid down a standard for testing certain poultry, pigmeat and beef products for human consumption or for use as feed that are intended for export. The standard has been fixed at 200ng/g of fat. The European Standing Veterinary Committee has approved that standard. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/5

No Community reference standards for PCBs have been laid down at European level. In terms of the internal market, the fact that certain Belgian products intended for export are required to comply with this stringent standard consequently can be considered as tending to distort competition.

Does the Commission not consider that in the interests of optimum protection of public health and in a concern for fair conditions of competition on the internal market, it would be appropriate to lay down PCB reference standards at Community level? Will it submit proposals for the necessary legislation?

Reply given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

The contamination of foodstuffs notified by Belgium to the Commission and the other Member States on 27 May 1999 concerned abnormal dioxin levels in recycled fatty matter accidentally fed to certain poultry, pigs and bovines.

The level of 200 nanogrammes (ng) of polychlorobiphenyls per gram (PCB/g) of fat in the meat and derived products corresponds to the particular case of contamination from fats supplied by the Verkest/ Fogra firms. In this case, seven identified PCB congeners make it possible to define the products contaminated as a result of this incident. The standard of 200 ng/g fat was adopted at Community level in the decisions on the Belgian crisis in order to certify, on the basis of analyses, Belgian meat intended for exportation or for intra-Community trade. The Scientific Committee on Food held that the values selected were appropriate for managing this crisis.

The latest Commission decision, namely Decision 1999/640/EC of 23 September 1999 on protective measures with regard to contamination by dioxins of certain products of porcine and poultry origin intended for human consumption (1), lifts all the restrictions on bovine meat and derived products of Belgian origin. The standard of 200 ng/g fat prescribed for bovine meat is thus no longer pertinent and has not been included in the annexes to the new Decision.

The adoption of PCB limits in food and feedingstuffs is closely linked to the adoption of dioxin limits for these products. As regards the adoption of limit values for dioxins in food, the Commission in June 1998 launched an in-depth study of food contamination levels ascertained in several Member States. This study belongs in the framework of the scientific cooperation programme between the Member States (SCOOP). The preliminary results of this study, which should be available very shortly, should cast light on the public health risk and will be one of the factors in the ongoing deliberations with a view to laying down Community limits at a later stage.

Finally, in view of the current state of Community law, and quite apart from the values laid down in the Commission’s decisions specifically concerning the Belgian dioxin crisis, a maximum level of dioxins for citrus pulp is specified in Annex I, under B, point 21, of Council Directive 1999/29/EC of 22 April 1999 on undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition (2). Besides, a proposal laying down dioxin limit values in raw materials and final products intended for animal nutrition is currently being discussed. Any examination of the advisability of prescribing such levels for food should take account of all the available scientific, technical and economic data and their implications for consumer protection.

(1) OJ L 253, 28.9.1999. (2) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1647/99 by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Airport damage to special protection area

Is the Commission aware that the proposal to extend the runway area at the City of Derry airport into Lough Foyle, with the European Union providing 75 % of the funding, will damage a special protection C 225 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

area; is it aware of the economic appraisal on which the scheme is based; and what steps will it take to ensure no scheme receives EU funds if it is shown to be a threat to the environment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 1999)

The Commission is not aware that the proposal to extend a runway area into Lough Foyle will damage a special protection area (SPA), classified by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1).

The Commission is aware that an economic appraisal has been carried out but, under the principle of subsidiarity, assessment of the various elements contained therein rests with the national authority which in this case is the Department of environment in Northern Ireland.

The protection regime applying to the Lough Foyle SPA is defined in Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2). Therefore, any plan or project not directly connected to the management of this site but likely to have a significant effect on it must be subject to an appropriate environmental assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives.

Given that the Honourable Member has alleged that the proposal to develop the runway will damage a special protection area he is invited to submit further details on the nature and extent of the threat to the birds and their habitats so that the Commission will be able to fully investigate the matter with the United Kingdom authorities.

In relation to whether the scheme would receive Community funds, it is a requirement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 on the tasks of the structural funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European investment bank and the other existing financial instruments (3) that measures to be co-financed by the structural funds should be in conformity with Community environment policy.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (3) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(2000/C 225 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1675/99

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Exotic animals

Exotic animals are subjected to indescribable suffering during transportation. Treated as ‘goods’, they are transported in appalling conditions. Many animals are dead or seriously injured by the time they reach their destination.

What measures is the Commission taking to halt practices of this kind which are cruel to animals?

What measures is the Commission taking to monitor the illegal transportation of exotic animals?

Will the Commission support a ban on imports of exotic animals into the Member States of the European Union? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/7

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1999)

The Commission would like to point out to the Honourable Member that 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) contains all the necessary provisions for trade and transport of wild animals and plant species. In particular, all imported and exported specimens of species covered by the Regulation must be transported in accordance with international norms established by the International air transport association (IATA) or Convention on trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES). Mortality in transport is closely monitored in the Community and import restrictions can be put in place where necessary.

The authorities of individual Member States have the responsibility for ensuring that these requirements are complied with. However, according to the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 an enforcement group has been established, consisting of responsible authorities of each Member State, to combat illegal trade.

The Commission considers that the conservation of many species is sometimes better served by permitting a well-monitored and controlled trade rather than instituting an import ban.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2000/C 225 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1697/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Violation of Directive 91/271/EEC concerning the designation of vulnerable areas in the Gulf of Elefsina.

The Committee on Petitions has examined Petition 413/92 submitted by the inhabitants of the region of Elefsina. A group of Euro-MPs visited the region in October 1995 and examined the state of the environment and the alleged violations of Community legislation which local inhabitants had protested about, but they failed to receive any undertakings from the Greek government that it would address the problems.

The Commission initiated proceedings against Greece for failing to implement Directive 91/271/EEC (1)on vulnerable regions: the result of the Greek Government’s failure to act is that the Gulf of Elefsina is not being protected, and no measures are being taken to restore the environment.

Will the Commission say which programmes can be used to fund substantive measures to rid the Gulf of environmental pollution and to improve the quality of the water and the coastline?

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 1999)

When Petition 413/92 was examined the Commission informed the members of Parliament’s Commission on Petitions (on 22 April 1999) of the action taken in the Elefsina region by the Greek authorities in implementation of Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major accident hazards of certain industrial activities (1) (amended by Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances (2)). They found the information given satisfactory and decided to terminate action on the petition. C 225 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

On Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (3) the Commission reminds the Honourable Member that in view of Greece’s failure to identify sensitive areas (as required by Article 5 of the Directive) it decided in July 1999 to bring the matter before the Court of Justice under Article 226 (formerly 169) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission has always supported the provision of domestic and industrial waste water treatment in Greece and protection of coastlines.

Depending on their nature projects at present are part-financed either from the Cohesion Fund or through operational programmes (OP) under the 19941999 Community support framework for Greece. These include the Environment OP and the OPs for the 13 Greek regions. Support has also been given through other Community instruments such as LIFE.

The Commission is now examining Greece’s proposal for the Community support framework for the 2000-2006 programming period. This will certainly include part-financing of projects to clean up surface waters. It is also virtually certain that Cohesion Fund support will continue for projects of this type.

Treatment facilities for domestic and industrial waste water discharged into the Gulf of Elefsina can therefore be part-financed during the next programming period if the Greek authorities make appropriate proposals.

(1) OJ L 230, 5.8.1982. (2) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997. (3) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2000/C 225 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1702/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Draft budget 2000 expenditure relating to persons working with the Commission

In 1998, the budget heading ‘expenditure relating to persons working with the institution’ (i.e. the Commission) was ECU 1 641 555 000 (ITL 3 100 billion).

Why is this expenditure set to increase from ITL 3 100 billion to ITL 3 500 billion in 2000 a rise of over EUR 202 million (approximately ITL 400 billion)?

In the light of the austerity heralded by Mr Prodi, whereby the Commission was supposed to keep expenditure within 1998 levels, can the Commission explain the reasons for this increase?

(2000/C 225 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1703/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Draft budget 2000 expenditure resulting from special functions carried out by the Commission

In 1998 ECU 246 138 470 (ITL 477 billion) were spent on ‘special functions carried out by the institution’ (i.e. the Commission).

Can the Commission say why this expenditure is set to increase from EUR 246 million to over EUR 277 million (i.e. from ITL 477 billion to over 530 billion) in 2000 a rise of EUR 31 400 000 (approximately ITL 60 billion)? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/9

(2000/C 225 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1706/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Draft budget 2000 Staff and administrative expenditure in European Community delegations and decentralised expenditure on support staff and administration

In 1998, total expenditure on staff and administration in EC delegations and decentralised expenditure on support staff and administration was ECU 394 million (equivalent to ITL 763 billion).

Can the Commission explain why expenditure of EUR 433 million is envisaged for 2000, representing an increase of some EUR 40 million (ITL 77 billion)?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-1702/99, E-1703/99 and E-1706/99 given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The increase in appropriations, compared with the 1998 level of implementation, requested by the Commission for Heading A-1 (Expenditure relating to persons working within the institution) in the 2000 preliminary draft budget is due to the following:

an increase of € 101 million in appropriations for the pensions of former officials of all the institutions (Chapter A-19) because of an increase in the number of retired former officials, an increase in the average cost of pensions as a result of the newly retired having completed a longer period of service and an adjustment of the weightings in line with increases in the cost of living in the various Member States;

the effect of the salary adjustment adopted in December 1998, and those to be adopted in December 1999 and December 2000, by the Council (in total + 5,3 %);

a 1,1 % increase in expenditure in Belgian francs compared with the 1999 budget, as a result of the fixed exchange rate between the euro and the Belgian franc;

the impact of the net increase in the number of officials and temporary staff employed in 1998 (+270) and 1999 (+103), with the effect of a ‘full year’ (appropriations for six months the first year).

The appropriations under Title A-3 (expenditure resulting from special functions carried out by the institution) requested by the Commission in the 2000 preliminary draft budget are up by 8,4 % (€ 20,7 million) compared with the level of budget implementation in 1998 as a result of the following:

the 27,3 % increase in appropriations under Article A-327 for the European Schools (€ 26,6 million), including an increase of about 20 % over 1999 due to the application of the regulations for seconded staff, resulting in the payment of a severance grant for all teachers with nine years’ service at 1 September 2000, and the impact, over a full year, of the opening of the Brussels III School in September 1999;

the 4 % reduction in the appropriations requested for the other headings under Title A-3 (€ 5,9 million) compared with the 1998 implementation.

The growth in expenditure under Title A-6 (Staff and administrative expenditure of European Community delegations) is basically due to the restructuring of the external service, i.e. the expansion of the network of delegations to meet current policy priorities, which is being continued over 1999 and 2000 in accordance with the guidelines set by the budgetary authority, endorsed by the Commission.

Compared with the 1998 budget implementation, the level of appropriations requested by the Commission in the 2000 preliminary draft budget is up by 10,2 % (€ 21,2 million) because of the following:

a rise in the number of people employed in the delegations from 644 to 693 (+ 7,6 %) reflecting the redeployments from headquarters intended to improve the management of Community programmes of external actions; C 225 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

higher expenditure on immovable property due to rents being fixed in US dollars and to the multiannual programme for the security and renovation of buildings;

costs related to the rotation of officials in delegations;

new staff training measures;

the information technology programme to ensure that tools in delegations are compatible with those at headquarters.

The level of appropriations under Title A-7 (Decentralised expenditure on support staff and administration) requested by the Commission in the 2000 preliminary draft budget broadly matches the 1999 level.

The 12,4 % increase (€ 23,2 million) increase as compared with the 1998 implementation is due to the following:

the 1999 adjustment (last revision in 1991) of daily subsistence allowances for officials and subsistence allowances for national experts seconded to the Commission (impact over a full year: € 6,7 million);

the transfer, within the 1999 budget, of ancillary expenditure relating to conferences and congresses from Part B to Part A (Title A-7) (€ 17 million), decided by Parliament.

(2000/C 225 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1713/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Sweden’s competitive disadvantage in egg production

Both carcass meal and colouring agents are allowed in egg production in Finland. The same substances are banned in Sweden. Cages are also allowed to be smaller in Finland. Finnish producers, therefore, have lower costs than their Swedish counterparts. Is it fair that Swedish producers should be at a competitive disadvantage because they take greater account of consumers and animal welfare?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 1999)

The Commission is not aware of a general ban in Sweden on feeding any farmed livestock, including laying hens, with mammalian meat-and-bone meal.

Since 1986 Sweden has banned the use of certain animal material (i.e. animals which have died of natural causes or coming from parts of carcasses of slaughtered animals presenting pathological modifications) in the manufacture of animal feed. This derogation from the Community legislation was negotiated in the Act of Accession at the time of Sweden’s accession. The Commission is now reflecting on the possibility to introduce a similar ban in the Community.

According to the information received by the Commission, the use of substances for the colouring of eggs in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs (1), has been authorised in Sweden.

In relation to the protection of laying hens the Commission is very concerned about the welfare of the animals and gives it a high priority.

Concerning the size of the cages and the legislation on the protection of animal welfare in Sweden, Council Directive 88/166/EEC of 7th March 1988 complying with the judgement of the Court of justice in Case 131/86, annulment of Council Directive 86/113/EEC of 25th March 1986 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages (2) states in Article 1 that it ‘lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages’. The same principle is stated by 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/11

Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 (3) which will replace Council Directive 88/166/EEC, and which provides that Member States may, while respecting the general rules laid down in the EC Treaty, maintain or apply within their territories provisions for the protection of laying hens which are more stringent than those envisaged by the Directive.

It is clear that the aim of the Directive is to set up minimum standards for animal welfare and, therefore, Member States may go further if they wish provided that they respect the general rules laid down in the Treaty. This is in conformity with the judgement of the Court of justice of 19 October 1995, in case C-128/94, Hönig.

It cannot be disputed that some aspects of enhanced animal welfare standards such as provisions of superior housing arrangements may influence production costs but actually, the protocol No 33 of the Amsterdam Treaty requires the Commission and Member States to consider animal welfare a priority when drawing up transport, single market and research policies.

It does not therefore appear, on the basis of the information available, that the existing legislation which the Honourable Member has mentioned, infringes Community law applicable either to animal welfare or the common organisation of the agricultural market.

(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970. (2) OJ L 74, 19.3.1988. (3) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1714/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Climate subsidy for egg producers

To offset the disadvantages of a cold climate and long distances, a special Norrland subsidy is paid to egg producers in northern Sweden. The subsidy is paid per hen. The EU has insisted that the subsidy be reduced on competition grounds. Is that a reasonable requirement given that production in the region is lower than consumption?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

In accordance with Article 142 of the Act of Accession, the Commission has authorised Sweden to grant long-term national aid with a view to ensuring that agricultural activity is maintained in specific regions covering the agricultural areas located north of the 62nd Parallel and some adjacent regions affected by a comparable climatic conditions rendering agricultural activity particularly difficult.

These aids are to be granted, in particular, to maintain traditional methods of primary production and processing, to facilitate the disposal of those products and to ensure that the environment is protected and the countryside preserved. These aids must not lead to an increase in production (physical limits) or in the level of overall support (monetary limits) recorded during a reference period previous to accession.

The long-term national aids were not authorised on the basis of Articles 87 and 88 (ex-Articles 92 and 93) of the EC Treaty but in accordance with Article 142 of the Act of Accession.

The Commission by its Decision No 97/557/EC of 17 July 1997 amending Decision 96/228/EC on a long- term national aid scheme to assist farmers in northern areas of Sweden (1), determined the Nordic areas of Sweden, fixed the reference period to be used to ensure that Nordic aid does not lead to an increase in production or in the level of overall support and also determined the form and level of the aid and fixed the level of the agricultural production that may not be exceeded without the level of aid granted being reduced. C 225 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Sweden is implementing this decision by the so-called Norrland subsidy, which is a continuation of the aid regime in force before accession. Under this regime aid is granted per replaced laying hen. A national limitation is set so that the aid is granted only from 1,000 replaced hens per year onwards.

The Commission decision defines the maximum aid rates and the maximum allowed production amounts, which are based on the reference period. When the national implementation is in line with the Commission decision, the only possible reduction requirement comes in the case where the total amount of production is exceeded. Then Article 4 of the decision requires that Sweden shall reduce the aid granted proportionally in the following year.

The fundamental principle of the Article 142 is to maintain the traditional agricultural activity in northern regions and not to increase the production with the help of the aid.

(1) OJ L 230, 21.8.1997.

(2000/C 225 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1715/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Internet surveillance by American secret services

Following on from Echelon, the Anglo-American system for monitoring communications between citizens, the NSA (National Security Agency) and the CIA, under the ‘United States National Plan for Information System Protection’ drawn up by the National Security Council, are now able to monitor all information and communication that takes place worldwide on the Internet, through a ‘federal intruder detection network’ (Fidnet).

What measures does the Commission intend to take to protect the privacy of Union citizens and businesses against this new attack on individual and commercial freedom?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1999)

On 24 October 1995 the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1). On 15 December 1997 the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 97/66/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (2). The deadline for implementing these Directives expired on 24 October 1998. Both Directives aim to ensure the rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data, and in particular their right to privacy.

These directives are obviously relevant to the matters raised in the Honourable Member’s written question. The scope of the Directives is naturally limited to the issues which come within the framework of the EC Treaty and both Directives allow exemptions in order to safeguard particular interests such as public security or the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences. Any citizen who feels that his or her privacy is prejudiced can either complain to the national supervisory data protection authorities or make submissions to a national court.

The question of alleged interception for national security reasons falls outside the competence of the Commission as defined by the EC Treaty. In this respect, the Honourable Member is referred to the answers provided by the Commission to written question E-1039/98 by Mrs Van Dijk (3), E-1040/98 by Mrs Van Dijk (4), E-1306/98 by Mrs Muscardini and others (5), E-1429 by Mrs Raschhofer (6), E-1776/98 by Mr Manisco (7), E-1987/98 by Mr Kaklamanis (8), H-1067/98 by Mrs McKenna during question time at 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/13

Parliament’s December 1998 part-session (9), H-1237/98 by Mr Schorling during question time at Parliament’s January 1999 part-session (10) and H-0092/99 by Mr Theonas during question time at Parliament’s February 1999 part-session (11).

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995. (2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998. (3) OJ C 354, 24.11.1998. (4) OJ C 354, 24.11.1998. (5) OJ C 402, 6.1.1998. (6) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999. (7) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999. (8) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999. (9) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1998). (10) Debates of the European Parliament (January 1999). (11) Debates of the European Parliament (February 1999).

(2000/C 225 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1720/99 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Minimum standards for crash helmets for high-speed watercraft

In recent months, the British media has reported a number of accidents involving high speed watercraft, especially jet skis. In some cases, the injuries sustained may have been less severe had the occupant or occupants been wearing suitable crash helmets.

Accidents involving high-speed watercraft can exert entirely different stresses on the head and neck than those involving other slower craft. Crash helmets designed for canoes and white-water sports are therefore not only unsuitable but possibly dangerous.

No British standards nor, as far as I am aware, international standards yet exist for crash helmets for high speed watercraft.

Will the Commission therefore investigate the feasibility of setting such standards at EU level to help prevent such unnecessary injury recurring?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1999)

Helmets intended for use in high-speed watercraft are covered by the ‘new approach’ directive on personal protective equipment (PPE), Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (1). ‘New approach’ principles require a correct application of the essential health and safety requirements applicable to a product but give the manufacturer a choice of either directly meeting the essential health and safety requirements or relevant harmonised standards.

The essential health and safety requirements are set out in Annex II, which clearly states at its point 1 that ‘PPE must provide adequate protection against all risks encountered’. Furthermore, PPE must be so designed and manufactured that in the foreseeable conditions of use for which it is intended the user can perform the risk-related activity normally whilst enjoying protection at the highest possible level. Manufacturers must provide the users with all relevant information on use and maintenance.

Compliance with the PPE Directive’s relevant health and safety requirements is provided through conformity assessment procedures which have been set at a level proportionate to the potential risks against which protection is provided. For the helmets in question, a manufacturer is under a legal obligation to obtain a Community-type certification from a notified body designated by a Member State. The notified body checks the conformity of the type with the essential health and safety requirements C 225 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

using its technical expertise and applying available standards or, where these are not available, parts of standards, technical documentation and specifications. The notion of ‘state of the art’ also plays a crucial role.

European standardisation bodies draft harmonised standards on the basis of mandates from the Com- mission. Their current workload over-stretches the available technical resources. The total cost of an average standard can be valued at € 100 000. This amount can rise to € 200 000 or more in cases where documentation is scarce and research is needed.

Finally, market surveillance seeks to ensure control of compliance with the existing rules. There is a legal requirement for Member States to ensure that appropriate and proportionate market surveillance is in place so that only compliant products are placed on the market.

It is therefore clear that the question of standardisation does not preclude the obligations existing under the PPE Directive that helmets worn according to their intended use must protect the wearer from potential hazards. If the Honourable Member is aware that helmets are being manufactured and sold which do not comply with the requirements of the PPE Directive the Commission would be pleased to pass this information to the enforcement authorities of the United Kingdom.

(1) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989.

(2000/C 225 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1725/99 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 September 1999)

Subject: Implementing the nitrate directive

1. In its answer to my Question P-3176/98 (1) on measuring the nitrate content of surface and ground water in the European Union, the Commission said that it would shortly be putting forward some practical proposals for this purpose. Can it say to what extent the proposals have taken shape?

2. Can the Commission say how far it is possible using these methods to establish whether the nitrate content of ground and surface water is caused by agriculture or industrial activities?

3. Can the Commission say whether the measurement methods take account of seasonal and climatic variations?

4. Can the Commission take the necessary steps to ensure that manure, and particularly dried manure (from poultry), is more freely marketable in the EU?

(1) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999, p. 25.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 1999)

Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1) leaves the choice to Member States for precise sampling of their surface and ground water, only requiring that they must be representative of the quality of all national waters and indicating minimum frequencies. The Commission has however developed guidelines, the draft of which will be sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat, in order to help harmonise the monitoring of waters, reporting on the evolution of their quality and on assessment of action programmes in vulnerable zones. The draft guidelines have been presented to Member States and will be examined at the next ‘Nitrates Committee’ of 26 October 1999, before the year 2000 reporting exercise (end of 1st Action Programmes). Pages 4 to 6 and 13 to 14 of the monitoring guidelines give indications on surface and ground waters sampling. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/15

The differentiation of whether Nitrogen (N) pollution arises from agricultural or industrial sources can be made in two ways. Firstly by evaluating inputs from the different sources in the water basin, with measurements at emission and models (cf. appendix 3 of the guideline, and ‘OSPAR’ Harp guidelines for industrial pollution, and nitrogen retention in soil and water cycle), and secondly with the help of isotopic analysis (N15/N14 rate is different in organic N from human or animal origin, and in chemical N from fertilisers and factories, cf. page 10 of the guideline).

Exceptional climatic conditions such as drought and wet summers effectively influence nitrates leaching in sub soil or run off, and water quality. For that reason, it is proposed to study the evolution of nitrates in water at some representative points not only during one year in every four years (minimum required by the directive), but also through permanent monitoring (each month for surface water, twice a year for ground waters), in order to appreciate evolution on four year average values, with possible extrapolation to other sampling points (see pages 5-6 of reporting guidelines). In any case, action programmes should ensure enough precautionary measures (such as large manure storage, winter cover of soils, moderate fertilisation, buffer zones) to avoid major adverse effects of difficult climatic conditions in vulnerable zones.

The circulation of poultry and other livestock manure is restricted by Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(1) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC (2) and Commission Decision 96/103 (3). They are organic waste with hygienic and toxicologic potential problems, and cannot circulate within the Community, or outside, without guarantees for environment, animal and human health. This circulation is possible only after appropriate treatment and quality controls (chemical and micro biological parameters). The Commission is not aware of particular limitations in the trading of this product resulting from the implementation of the above legislation. The Commission would welcome any additional information from the Honourable Member about any trade problems experienced by individuals in compliance with these criteria.

In addition, the shipment of poultry and other livestock manure is governed by Council Regulation 259/93 (4) on the supervision and control of waste shipments based on the principle of prior informed consent.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991. (2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993. (3) OJ L 24, 31.1.1996. (4) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.

(2000/C 225 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1736/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Allocation of rural development aid to Portugal

According to recent press reports in Portugal, the Commission has approved a proposal for the allocation of rural development aid which will involve the annual transfer to Portugal of only 40 billion escudos.

The Portuguese Government, however, proposed a programme costing 60 billion escudos per year, this being the minimum amount it regarded as necessary to compensate for the reduction in the funding transferred from the CAP, since Portuguese farmers are last on the list of CAP beneficiaries.

Since Portugal is a country with large areas of poor-quality soil, where farmers operate in mountainous areas and use environmentally sustainable agricultural methods, it is a prime candidate for the rural development policy proposals which appeared to have been adopted by the Commission. C 225 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

What reasons led the Commission to allocate Portugal only 40 billion escudos per year for rural development, even though it knew that Portugal is the country most affected by the increasing liberalisation of agricultural markets and that Portuguese farmers’ incomes are in constant decline?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1999)

On 8 September 1999 the Commission decided on an indicative allocation by Member State of the allocations under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Guarantee Section for rural development measures for the period 2000 to 2006. The criteria for this allocation include the number of agricultural holdings, the area covered by farming, the rural population and the share of farming in employment. Portugal’s allocation amounts to EUR 200 million a year.

This allocation, which is 46,5 % up on the average annual financing for the same measures in the previous period (1994-1999), is intended to contribute to expenditure under four schemes only: early retirement, agri-environmental measures, afforestation and aid for less-favoured areas; all other rural development measures are financed by the EAGGF Guidance Section from the overall Structural Fund financing allotted to Portugal.

It is also worth bearing in mind that these allocations are quite flexible. First, the Commission is willing, within the limits of available resources, to adjust decisions on Member States’ allocations in the first three years, in accordance with Article 46(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1). Secondly, under the detailed rules adopted by the Commission in July 1999 for the application of rural development programmes, resources made available in view of initial expenditure forecasts but not used by a Member State in the course of the year may (beyond a certain percentage) be reallocated to Member States that have overrun their forecast expenditure. It should be possible, with this flexibility, to cope with unforeseen situations, even though over the period as a whole the Member States must work within the allocation fixed in the Commission Decision.

Moreover, Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (2) provides for ‘modulation’ of payments under common market organisations, so as to provide additional support for the four above- mentioned rural development schemes.

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

(2000/C 225 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1759/99

by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Commission policy (DG VIII) on combating poverty in developing countries

In his written answers to the EP questionnaire, the Commission Member responsible for development, Mr Nielson, asserted that overcoming poverty had to be at the centre of our efforts.

Can the Commission provide more detailed information on current and future strategies to combat poverty in developing countries, covering the following aspects in particular:

1. What operational areas are covered by DG VIII policy on combating poverty (e.g. basic education, training, health, infrastructures, in particular water supply, sewerage and roads, social security systems, food supply, etc)? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/17

2. Is a distinction being made between direct and indirect operations to combat poverty (macroeconomic measures, institutional consultation, policy consultation, etc)?

3. What departments within DG VIII are responsible for organising operations to combat poverty, and how is the organising unit staffed?

4. What was the amount of the appropriations made available to DG VIII over the last five years for financing operations to combat poverty?

5. Can the Commission specify how many of those living in poverty can be shown to have benefited from direct operations to combat poverty in the last five years (under what programmes or projects, and in which countries)?

6. Do the claims made in the March 1999 DAC ‘Scoping Study of Donor Poverty Reduction Policies and Practices’, to the effect that both the definition of efforts to combat poverty and the policies and practices implemented in doing so ought to be completely overhauled, also apply to DG VIII?

7. Have any impact studies been conducted to determine the success of direct operations to combat poverty, and how were such operations assessed by people living in poverty themselves?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1999)

1. The Community approach to poverty reduction was set out in the communication of 1993 (1), and this was reviewed in a working paper presented to Council in May 1998 (2). Poverty reduction is the goal of all operations. Up to the present poverty reduction has been directly approached through support to basic social services, including through the use of counterpart funds arising from structural adjustment support. However, this strategy has to be developed further, by systematically mainstreaming poverty reduction into all sectors. An action plan is presently being considered that will set out guidelines and performance indicators, taking account of the results of a development assistance committee (DAC) working group on this issue. A new policy document on food security and poverty reduction is under preparation. In the health sector, a recent expert meeting agreed to set up a working group on the issue of health and poverty reduction. Further work is also taking place on rural development, environment, and education to bring policies more clearly into line with the objective of poverty reduction.

2. Since no formal distinction has been made up to the present, there are planned changes to the identification sheet for programmes which should make it possible to differentiate direct poverty reduction approaches from indirect approaches.

3. All staff in the Directorate general for development are responsible for reaching this objective. However the Directorate for sustainable development strategies is formally charged with ensuring that the aim is systematically addressed at all levels. This directorate has five units. One unit (Social, human and cultural development; and gender) has been particularly concerned. However, means to strengthen the capacity in this area is being considered, with, among other innovations, focal points in other units, a help desk to support operations directly.

4. A recent staff estimate is that spending on basic health and education services for African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries is about 20 %, in line with the commitment of Copenhagen in 1995. In 1997, payments in the European development fund (EDF) on all social infrastructures and services, including government and civil society were € 196 million (16 %), and structural adjustment support, mainly for social services, was € 222 million (18 %). Other programmes in water supplies, finance, rural development, food security and transport also contributed to poverty reduction, but it is difficult to estimate the proportion that directly contributed to poverty reduction without a detailed investigation. C 225 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

5. No donor agency can give an estimate on the impact their operations have on poverty reduction. Therefore the Commission is presently contributing to a working group within the DAC to resolve this problem, having suggested a possible methodology for a better grasp of the impact of operations on the reduction of poverty. This methodology tries to capture both qualitative and quantitative data on poverty and link this to the actual operations being undertaken. It will be discussed in a DAC evaluation working group in Edinburgh on 13-14 October 1999, after which it will be decided how to develop this methodology.

6. The study found that the 1993 policy on poverty reduction remained valid, but that more effort was needed on implementation. This reflected the Commission’s own working paper of 1998. The Commission is now actively participating in the DAC working group that is overhauling its approach, with the intention of producing guidelines by June 2000.

7. This is the intention of the methodology being developed, as it brings together poor people’s own assessments with data from other sources. A pilot test was undertaken in Burkina Faso that confirmed the validity of the methodology. The test, however, was not intended as a full impact study of operations in Burkina Faso since there were several technical issues to resolve the weight to be given to indirect and direct operations, the links between qualitative and quantitative data, and attribution of the results to operations or other external factors among others.

(1) COM(93) 518 final. (2) Doc. 8541/98, 12.5.1998.

(2000/C 225 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1771/99

by Horst Schnellhardt (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Structural Fund programme approvals made subject to area notifications pursuant to the Flora, Fauna and Habitats (FFH) and Bird Protection Directive

By letter of 23 June 1999 to the Permanent Representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany in the European Union, Commission Members Mrs Monika Wulf-Mathies and Mrs Ritt Bjerregaard pointed out that, in application of Article 12 of the Structural Fund Framework Regulation, it might well be impossible for German Structural Fund programmes for the 2000 to 2006 assistance period to be approved by the European Commission.

Does the Commission consider it lawful and reasonable in this connection for the approval of Structural Fund programmes and projects submitted by Germany to be made subject to whether or not area notifications pursuant to the Flora, Fauna and Habitats (FFH) and Bird Protection Directive have been submitted in their entirety?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

As the Honourable Member will be aware, the finalisation of the list of sites of Community importance (Natura 2000), including areas related to both Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) was supposed to be complete by June 1998, but has been delayed because several Member States have so far failed to provide their corresponding proposals (deadline was June 1995). The lack of identification of respective sites affected by structural funds operations has resulted in problems and delays in the implementation of the current programmes. Moreover, at this time there are several Court proceedings pending against several Member States, as regards insufficient transmission of proposed protected sites. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/19

In view of the delayed designation of protected sites, and in order to ensure that the Commission can fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty (Article 6 ex Article 3c) and Articles 12 and 41 (2) (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the structural funds (3), all Member States were reminded by letter of 23 June 1999 of their duty to ensure conformity of new programmes and projects with the requirements of the Habitats and Birds directives. In the case of some Member States, there remains a serious lack of information on protected sites which might jeopardise the Commission’s assessment whether programmes are in conformity with Community law as required by Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999.

In any case the Commission will assess each plan or programme as to its individual content related to the requirements of the Habitats and Birds directives. Member States must in the respective plan or programme, give a firm commitment that any possible negative impact on sites protected or to be protected under Natura 2000 will be properly assessed and appropriate measures taken.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1774/99 by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Compliance with Community rules in the footwear sector

Footwear manufacturers have drawn my attention to conditions of competition in this industry within the EU.

These industrialists, mostly from small and medium-sized undertakings, complain about the failure of competing companies in other EU Member States to comply with Community rules.

It appears that the authorities in these Member States do not enforce rules such as those requiring machines to be brought into conformity with European standards or the prohibition on undeclared employment.

Infringement of such rules causes unacceptable distortions of competition in the European internal market within a sector which is also exposed to ‘aggressive’ competition from outside the Community.

Will the Commission enlighten us on the subject and, if possible, indicate what measures it intends to take to remedy the problem?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1999)

The Commission agrees that undeclared work is an important preoccupation for the social partners in sectors such as footwear, textile and clothing. The 1999 Employment Guidelines, as adopted by the Council (1), and the Commission proposals for the year 2000 (2) refer to the need to tackle the problem. This issue is also under discussion by the social partners at European level within the framework of the sectoral social dialogue on the basis of the Commission action plan concerning the competitiveness of the textile and clothing industry (3). In particular, the social dialogue committee on footwear is examining the undeclared work and health and safety issues such as machine safety.

All the Member States have sent the Commission their national measures implementing Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (4). The conformity of these national implementing measures is currently being analysed, and infringement proceedings have already been instituted against certain Member States for failure to transpose the Directive properly. Council Directive 95/63/EC of 5 December C 225 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

1995 amending Directive 89/655/EEC (5) has yet to be transposed by one Member State. Accordingly, the Commission has instituted infringement proceedings under Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty. The Commission has no knowledge of cases in which the national authorities might be failing to meet their obligations in terms of monitoring the application of the national legislation transposing these Directives.

New machinery placed on the market and brought into service to produce shoes is covered by Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery (6), which sets objectives. Two draft European standards setting out the essential requirements are currently being drawn up: PrEN 12203 (Footwear, leather and imitation leather goods manufacturing machines shoe and leather presses safety requirements) and PrEN 12387 (Footwear, leather and imitation leather goods manufacturing machines modular shoe repair equipment safety requirements). Member States are required to ensure that all machinery placed on the market and brought into service meets the requirements of the abovementioned Directive. The Commission is unaware of any failures to meet this obligation.

The bringing into compliance of machinery already in service is covered by Directive 89/655/EEC, as amended by Directive 95/63/EC.

(1) COM(98) 574 final. (2) COM(1999) 441 final. (3) COM(97) 454 final. (4) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989. (5) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995. (6) OJ L 207, 23.7.1998.

(2000/C 225 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1781/99

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Maritime accident investigations

In the light of the recent collision in the Channel, and with a view to the improved safety of passengers at sea, will the Commission ensure that independent accident investigation arrangements are introduced for all maritime operations in the EU, similar to the arrangements for air accident investigation in the EU?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1999)

A first Commission initiative aimed at introducing independent accident investigation arrangements has resulted in the adoption of Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services (1). This Directive will provide any substantially interested Member State the legal right to participate, to co-operate in, or where provided under the Internation maritime organization (IMO) code for the investigation of marine casualties (2), to conduct any marine casualty or incident investigation involving a ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft.

The Commission acknowledged in the explanatory memorandum of its proposal for this Directive (3) that a justified and legitimate involvement of Member States in marine casualty investigations should not be limited to ro-ro ferries and high speed passenger craft only. The Commission considered the proposal as a first step towards a more general application of the IMO code for the investigation of marine casualties and announced that it would consider, in the light of the expertise gained with the application of this Directive, how and which further steps would be necessary at Community level to ensure an effective implementation of the IMO code in all maritime accidents and incidents occurring within waters falling under the Community’s concern. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/21

This Commission intention has been confirmed in the Commission communication on ‘the common transport policy sustainable mobility: perspectives for the future’, which mentions a proposal on accident investigation and statistics as one of the main possible tasks for its action programme 2000-2004 (4).

(1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999. (2) IMO Assembly Resolution A.849(20) adopted on 27 November 1997. (3) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998. (4) COM(98) 716 final.

(2000/C 225 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1793/99 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Ban on antifouling paints containing copper

On 31 August 1999, the Netherlands Minister for Health, Welfare and Sport (for the Pesticides Authorisa- tion Board) issued a decree prohibiting, with effect from 1 September 1999, the use on (i.e. application to) pleasure craft in the Netherlands of antifouling paints that contain copper. However, vessels to which antifouling paints containing copper are applied in other countries are not banned in Dutch waters. Nor does the ban apply to antifouling treatments used in the Netherlands before 1 September 1999.

Does the Commission agree that the Dutch provisions may be regarded as a barrier to trade such as is prohibited by Article 30 of the EC Treaty?

Does the Netherlands government have the power to issue such a decree before the end of the implementation period of, in this case, Directive 98/8/EC (1) (the Biocides Directive)?

What are the Netherlands government’s obligations pursuant to Directive 98/8/EC and/or the general directive on the notification of technical measures (Directive 98/34/EC) (2) as regards the notification of this ban before it is implemented?

Has the Netherlands fulfilled any such obligations?

If so, how and to what extent?

If not, what action does the Commission plan to take?

(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1. (2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 1999)

The Commission is unable to state its opinion on the national provisions until they have been notified to it.

If the national provisions concerned are ‘technical rules’ within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down the procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, the Netherlands has not fulfilled its obligations since, as far as the Commission is aware, the provisions concerned have not been notified to it.

If the provisions are indeed ‘technical rules’ which have not been notified in accordance with the procedure laid down in the above Directive, the Commission, as guardian of the EC Treaty, will take all necessary steps. However, a more detailed examination of the measure is necessary to enable the Commission to adopt a position on it. C 225 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Article 16 of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing on the market of biocide products provides for a transitional period of ten years. During the transitional period, the notification requirement under Directive 98/34/EC still remains (see Article 16(5)).

Until the final date for the transposition of the Biocides Directive, on 13 May 2000, the Dutch authorities do have the right to adopt such national provisions, provided that, apart from being notified as mentioned above, the provisions are compatible with Articles 28 (formerly Article 30) to 30 (formerly Article 36) of the EC Treaty. The Commission will check such compatibility on the basis of the texts submitted to it.

(2000/C 225 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1808/99

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Notified bodies

The Commission’s intention to promote free trade between the EU and the countries applying for membership and to reduce industry’s costs by means of the speedy recognition of notified bodies is supported by the author of this question. There must, however, be no permanent lowering of environmental, social, product and technical standards which may affect consumers either in the EU or in the applicant countries. For this reason it must be ensured that notified bodies in the applicant countries receive professional and financial assistance to enable them to monitor the release of products on to the market, so that the EU’s quality standards can be matched. In general terms, however, precautions should also be taken to ensure that the quality standards of technical monitoring in the EU and in the applicant countries are such that consumers are guaranteed a high level of protection and safety. There is no room for any ‘black sheep’ amongst the ranks of such important institutions as the notified bodies.

1. Why was the question of notified bodies not negotiated as part of the whole accession ‘package’?

2. What action is the Commission planning to take in order to bring the notified bodies in the applicant countries up to the EU’s quality standards, and will that action be sufficient?

3. What have the Commission’s experiences with the protection clause procedures been so far and what form will such procedures take during the transition period?

4. What form does the question of jurisdiction take?

5. How does the Commission intend to carry out regular monitoring of the necessary quality standards both in the EU and in the applicant countries?

6. Is the Commission planning to take any further steps in order to promote liberalisation in the field of testing and standards and thereby to reduce costs borne by producers and hence, indirectly, by consumers?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1999)

The Commission is in broad agreement with the position expressed by the Honourable Member.

However, it would add the following comments in reply to the specific questions:

1. Questions relating to notified bodies are covered by the enlargement negotiations, under the chapter ‘free movement of goods’. These negotiations are still in process. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/23

2. The Commission has made it clear to candidate countries that compliance with the acquis in the matter of notified bodies is indispensable for enlargement, a position that is not contested. The PHARE programme and, in particular PRAQ III, provide for technical assistance in this field. PRAQ III also provides for evaluation of progress, as a tool for the effective channelling of assistance. This technical assistance amounts to a transfer of European best practices, helping the beneficiary countries to achieve levels of performance comparable to those found in the Community.

3. and 4. The safeguard procedure provided in Community product legislation only applies within the European economic area (EEA), or in countries with which specific trade arrangements have provided for its application. It is not applicable to candidate countries in the pre-enlargement period, unless a specific agreement provides otherwise. The question of jurisdiction therefore does not arise.

5. Market surveillance in the Community is a responsibility of the Member States. Community law requires Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with Community law, for example as regards freedom to place compliant products on the market and the obligation to ensure that non-compliant products are not placed on the market. However, in the run-up to their membership, the Community will monitor progress by the candidates to apply the acquis through further screening and sub-committee meetings.

6. Protocols to the Europe agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance of products (PECAs), currently under discussion with a number of candidate countries, would facilitate trade where it is established that the candidate country has already transposed and effectively implemented the requirements of the acquis on industrial products. This would require the candidate country to have implemented relevant legislation, to have ensured that notified bodies were performing at Community levels of competence, to have established effective market surveillance and to have established a safeguard procedure comparable to that provided within the Community. In the envisaged PECA procedure, compliance with the obligations of the safeguard procedure would fall under the jurisdiction of the respective parties, subject to the oversight of the joint committee.

(2000/C 225 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1813/99

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Selection of areas for EU aid in Finland

The initial selections have been made in the Member States for the areas to receive aid under the EU’s regional policy. In Finland the government is proposing precisely delimited areas for support under Objective 2, including parts of the fastest-growing and most developed cities.

From the point of view of the less-developed areas surrounding these cities it seems strange that well-off, developed areas are being selected to receive aid, while the surrounding areas which are suffering from an exodus of population, the loss of traditional livelihoods and structural changes to industry are not able to be included among the areas eligible for support.

If it is not possible for aid areas to include whole provinces, they should at least be based on whole neighbourhoods. Now the government’s proposal is seriously neglecting the rural areas around centres of growth.

What is the Commission doing to ensure that less-developed areas suffering serious problems can receive EU aid instead of the Member States ‘cherry-picking’ in this way? C 225 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

As provided in Article 4 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the structural funds, the Commission decides the list of regions eligible for objective 2 on the basis of a proposal from the Member State. The Commission examines the proposal for conformity with the regulation. In particular, it ensures that the population ceiling fixed for the Member State is respected and that the regions proposed fulfil the criteria set out in paragraphs 5 to 9 of Article 4.

These criteria cover the different categories of area eligible for support under objective 2, viz. areas undergoing socio-economic change in the industry and service sectors, declining rural areas, urban areas in difficulty and fisheries-dependent areas with serious problems. The Commission also verifies that where it is objectively possible at least 50 % of the population covered by objective 2 is situated in areas covered by the criteria in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 4, concerning socio-economic change in the industry and services sectors and declining rural areas.

In the case of Finland, the Commission has decided the list of eligible areas, in principle, at its meeting of 26 October 1999. Some 27 % of the objective 2 list for Finland, in terms of population, were formally proposed by the national authorities under rural criteria, with 11 % and 62 % for the urban and industrial areas, respectively. In reality, the industrial areas also contain a significant rural territory which would allow the national authorities to finance measures under the objective 2 programmes concerned in favour of rural development.

The Commission is satisfied that list of areas eligible under objective 2 in Finland meet the criteria in the regulation and that they therefore have genuine needs in accordance with aims of this objective.

(2000/C 225 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1819/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: ‘Europe against Cancer’ programme

Can the Commission state to what extent funding or subsidies have been awarded (with payments already disbursed, or not), and to what bodies (public or private), institutions, undertakings, cooperatives or individuals, in connection with the ‘European against Cancer’ programme Action plans 1987-1989, 1990-1994 and 1996-2000?

Have the actual deployment of the funds and the successful outcome of the initiatives been verified?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the evaluation and implementation reports on the three action plans against cancer, details of which are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s secretariat.

Controls on the correct use of Community funds in the context of these action plans are carried out by means of evaluation of the scientific and budgetary reports provided by contractors, and by audits carried out in particular cases by the Commission. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/25

(2000/C 225 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1824/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Breaches of environmental and safety legislation by the river Umia dam scheme in Galicia

On an initial pretext of needing to provide water for the Salnés district in Galicia, the Galician Fovernment claim that there was an urgent need to build a dam on the river Umia, which was in fact quite fraudulently intended to supply hydro electric power. The obligatory study of the impact of the scheme both on the environment and on the safety of the local population was not carried out, although the scheme could destroy a substantial part of the area’s cultural and natural heritage and its tourist potential. The scheme was rejected by an overwhelming majority of those affected (who were even subject to police violence during peaceful demonstrations), and negative assessments were returned by the Galician ombudsman; the scheme was condemned by the Galician High Court, which ordered building operations to cease forthwith and for the land concerned to be returned to its owners. The Galician government quite illegally ignored this ruling.

Is the Commission going to take the requisite and economic steps to ensure that the Galician Government ceases its building work on the Umia dam and restores the status quo ante, so as to prevent the grave prejudice which will otherwise be caused to the local population?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 1999)

The Honourable Member’s question concerns a dam project on the River Umia close to the village of Caldas de Reis in Galicia. The Honourable Member has already lodged a petition regarding the project (No 79/98).

In its examination of the petition, the Commission is attempting to clarify the situation as reported, including the alleged misapplication of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), as amended by Directive 97/11/ EC, and of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2).

This detailed examination particularly necessary inasmuch as the project is part of the Autonomous Community of Galicia’s operational programme, which receives funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is not yet complete.

The Commission will not fail to keep the Honourable Member informed of further developments in this matter within Parliament’s Committee on Petitions.

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

(2000/C 225 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1826/99 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: International child abduction

Article 4 of the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for joint children (COM(1999) 220), which relates to child abduction states that the courts with jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 3 (Parental responsibility) shall exercise their jurisdiction ‘in conformity with the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction’. C 225 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Do Member States currently inform their citizens of the implications and powers of this Hague Convention in, for example, passports or literature relating to living abroad? Will this situation change with the introduction of the proposed Council regulation?

Is the Commission aware of the degree of compliance by Member States with the terms of the Convention?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Article 4 of the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for joint children (1) states that the international jurisdiction for which it provides is to be exercised in conformity with the 1980 Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, and in particular Articles 3 and 16 thereof. In other words, an authority or a court of a Member State which is a priori competent by virtue of the spouses’ joint child being habitually resident in that Member State (Article 3 of the draft Regulation) may not take measures relating to parental responsibility before a decision under the Hague Convention is taken as to whether the child should be returned or not, if that habitual residence is the consequence of the child being wrongfully removed or retained.

The Commission has no information on the steps taken by Member States to inform their nationals of the implications and effects of this Convention. The adoption of the Regulation will create no obligations for the Member States to provide information; the information measures mentioned by the Honourable Member remain within the competence of the Member States. The Commission can, however, indicate that the Hague Conference regularly organises meetings of all the Central Authorities designated to monitor the implementation of the Convention, and seminars intended to raise the awareness of national judges as to how it operates.

The Commission is not informed about cases of possible non-compliance with the Convention in question. It would add that the Convention leaves some margin of discretion for the national authorities requested to return a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained, particularly when the child has become settled in its new environment (Article 12) or if the return of the child would expose it to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation (Article 13).

(1) COM(1999) 220 final.

(2000/C 225 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1831/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 October 1999)

Subject: Allocation of funds for agricultural development for 2000-2006

The Commission has fixed the level of resources to be made available for each Member State for the new generation of agricultural development programmes for the period from 2000-2006, taking as the criterion the average funds approved over the last three years for each Member State. As a result of this distribution system, Greece will receive a mere 3 % of total funds to be made available for agricultural development, despite the fact that agriculture in Greece is particularly disadvantaged owing to the large agricultural population, the small size and family character of agricultural holdings and the particularly low agricultural income.

According to the Greek Government, it is the Brussels ‘bureaucracy’ which is responsible for the reduced take-up rate over the last three years, since it has not allowed Greek programmes submitted to be adopted, and as a result the final percentage of funds for Greece has fallen.

Will the Commission say:

1. Does it intend to review the allocation of funds, so that this can take place on the basis of the real situation and needs of the agricultural sector in each Member State? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/27

2. Who is responsible for the failure to adopt Greek programmes that have been submitted and what measures will be taken to avoid delays which, inter alia, affect future allocations of resources?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 1999)

The Commission underlines that out of 22 measures for rural development under Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1), in Greece only four (the three existing accompanying measures, and the aids to less-favoured areas) are concerned by the financial allocations of EAGGF-guarantee section. In fact, Greece, as part of the objective 1 regions for the whole of its territory will benefit in the period 2000-2006 from an additional and important financial assistance from the guidance section of EAGGF, within the total amount of € 20,96 million of the structural funds attributed to Greece. This will enable this Member State to implement the remaining 18 measures for rural development. Indeed, the Guidance section of EAGGF is reserved to objective 1 regions.

1. The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the flexibility which exists in the framework of the financial allocations. Firstly, the Commission is prepared to adjust within three years the decision on financial allocations by Member State, in accordance with the provisions of Article 46(3) of the above Regulation and within the overall limits of the resources available. Secondly, the implementation rules for the rural development programmes adopted by the Commission in July 1999 make clear that where resources unused by Member States in a given year reach a particular level, compared to their original planning figure, they can be ‘re-cycled’ to Member States with additional needs that conform with their programming documents. This will help to meet contingency pressures, although over the whole period the Member States would have to remain within their allocation set out in the Commission decision in force.

2. The Commission does not attribute responsibilities to anyone in relation to the approval of Greek programmes for rural development.

It should be recognised however that the accompanying measures in the period 1994-1999, due to their innovative and relatively complex character, faced some difficulties in the starting period, thus their implementation was not as speedy as initially expected.

The rate of absorption of credits from the Guidance section between 1994-1999 in Greece was however extremely high and successful. Thus globally the policy for rural development in this Member State during the above period was satisfactorily implemented.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1845/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Products of protected designation of origin (PDI) and protected geographical indication (PGI) private certification bodies freedom of competition

For some months the Italian Government has been seeking to assign responsibility for the certification of certain PDI products, including Grana Padano, to a single private body. Although the Italian anti-trust authority and a number of courts have ruled that this measure is illegal, the Italian Government seems set on adopting a law (Community Law 1999 AC 5619-B) sharply restricting freedom of competition by not allowing individual producers or producers’ associations direct access to the PDI control system, denying the possibility for several private bodies to certify the same PDI product, and encouraging protection consortia to extend their internal representativeness in order to meet the requirements of the Uni EN 45011 rules in order to become certification bodies themselves. C 225 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Will the Commission say:

1. whether individual producers or producers’ associations can have direct access to the control system;

2. whether confining responsibility for the certification of each PDI or PGI product to a single private certification body represents a serious distortion of free competition;

3. whether protection consortia can meet the necessary requirements and thus become private certification bodies or in any case impose standards or controls on non-associated subjects;

4. whether it believes that measures should be taken against the Italian Government in the light of the blatant irregularities described above?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 1999)

Under Article 10(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), ‘an inspection structure may comprise one or more designated inspection authorities and/or private bodies approved for that purpose by the Member State’. Article 4(2) stipulates that ‘the product specification shall include at least: … g) details of the inspection structures provided for in Article 10’.

For each protected designation of origin (PDO) or protected geographical indication (PGI) there may, therefore, be or one or more public inspection authorities or one or more private bodies approved for that purpose by the Member State, or a mixture of the two systems.

The Member State in which the geographical area of the PDO or PGI lies may decide on the composition and number of inspection structures. The Member State may choose, for example, to have only one private body for each PDO or PGI. However, where a Member State decides to designate several inspection authorities or (approved) private bodies, the holders of the PDO or PGI may choose their inspection structure from those designated.

The Regulation does not stipulate that private bodies must be accredited, but simply lays down (Article 10(3)) that ‘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.

Furthermore, Article 10(4) lays down that: ‘If a designated inspection authority and/or private body in a Member State establishes that an agricultural product or a foodstuff bearing a protected name of origin in that Member State does not meet the criteria of the specification, they shall take the steps necessary to ensure that this Regulation is complied with. They shall inform the Member State of the measures taken in carrying out their inspections. The parties concerned must be notified of all decisions taken.’

Producers of a PDO or a PGI product must in any case use the inspection structure provided for in the product specification for the name concerned. The product specification is drafted by the producers and annexed to their application for protected status. The choice of inspection structure may be changed at any time, where the Member State concerned so requests in accordance with Article 9 of the Regulation.

In the particular case of the PDO ‘Grana Padano’, the inspection structure, following the amendment notified by the competent Italian authority on 17 November 1998, is the approved private body ‘C.S.Q.A. Certificazione Qualità Agroalimentare s.r.l.’.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to take measures against the Italian Government.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/29

(2000/C 225 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1893/99 by Gérard Deprez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Food safety

Is the Commission aware that the FDA (the American public body responsible for food safety) has recently announced that it might very soon impose restrictions upon the widespread use of antibiotics on livestock following research ‘showing that bacteria resistant to antibiotics may be transmitted to humans from animals treated with these drugs?’

1. Is the Commission aware of this kind of research or of similar conclusions? Can it at least confirm that such research is being carried out and supported at European level? If so, does this research point to similar results?

2. May we assume that the precautionary principle is being currently respected in Europe on this matter, and in particular, could the Commission indicate the surveillance and monitoring systems now operating along the food chain with a view to preventing the possible transmission of this resistance to humans?

3. Does not the Commission intend to propose improvements to the present system, given the importance that it now appears to want to attach to food safety and given the disastrous impact that this transfer of bacteria might have on human health?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1999)

1. The Commission is aware that many international organisations, especially the World Health Organisation, and various governments are looking at the problem of antimicrobial resistance, as is the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well.

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that it banned the use of tetracyclines as additives in the 1970s and the use of ardacin in January 1998, and that it suspended approval for avoparcin in January 1997 and more recently (December 1998) for four other antibiotics (bacitracin zinc, virginiamycin, tylosin phosphate, spiramycin). These bans were imposed in order to restrict the use of these antibiotics or related molecules to human medicine with a view to limiting the development of cross-resistance and preventing the spread of resistance to humans, and to avoid a situation where human medicines are less effective.

Furthermore, the Commission asked the Scientific Steering Committee to look at the problem of antimicrobial resistance from a general perspective. The Committee presented its report on 28 May 1999 and stressed the need to reduce the general use of antibiotics in all areas: human medicine, veterinary medicine, additives in animal feedingstuffs and pesticides. The Commission is studying these recommendations and will submit appropriate proposals for legislation.

2. The Commission already applied the precautionary principle when it suspended approval for the use of the above-mentioned antibiotics as additives, and it will continue to do so in future if this proves necessary

The Commission has already collected data on bacteria resistant to antibiotics, particularly salmonella typhimurium DT104, under Council Directive 92/117/EEC of 17 December 1992 concerning measures for protection against specified zoonoses and specified zoonotic agents in animals and products of animal origin in order to prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and intoxications (1). Furthermore, a research project (FAIR) has been launched to look at strategies for monitoring resistance to antibiotics in bacteria of animal origin.

3. With regard to authorised antibiotics in animal feedingstuffs, the Commission intends to follow the advice of the Scientific Steering Committee, namely to stop as quickly as possible the use of antibiotics which are being or could be utilised in human medicine and, in the longer term, to ban all use of antibiotics as additives. C 225 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

As regards public health, the Commission has on a number of occasions already demonstrated that it is giving serious consideration to the problem of antimicrobial resistance.

The Commission is providing support for Enter-net, an international network for monitoring gastro- enteritis, especially human salmonellosis and infection with E. coli O 157. This includes resistance to antibiotics of salmonella isolates. All Member States are involved, along with Switzerland and Norway.

In order to make up for the lack of information on bacteria resistant to antibiotics and their importance in terms of public health, the Commission in August 1999 issued an invitation to tender for a study into the use of antimicrobial agents in the Community with a view to establishing a basis for future surveillance measures in this field.

(1) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993.

(2000/C 225 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1895/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: MEDIA II programme training (1996-2000)

Will the Commission state what agencies (public or private), institutions, companies, cooperatives and individuals have been allocated funding (specifying whether payments have already been made) under MEDIA II Training programme for professionals in the European audiovisual programme industry (1996-2000) (budget ECU 45 million, equal to approx. LIT 87 billion) and how much each of them has been granted?

Has it checked how the amounts have actually been used and whether the proposed measures have been successfully implemented?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 1999)

The Commission will forward directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat-General a table containing the list of bodies, institutes and companies which have been allocated funding under the Media II Training programme from 1996, which was the first year the programme was implemented, until the first half of 1999.

The Honourable Member should also consult the Commission report on the results obtained under the Media II programme during the period from 1 January 1996 to 30 June 1998 (1).

Allocation of funding is governed by the text of Council Decision 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) (1996-2000) (2). Funding is allocated in the form of grants. Calls for proposals are published in the Official Journal. The different eligibility and selection criteria which are applicable are specified by guidelines.

The selection of beneficiaries is carried out by the Commission, with assistance, in accordance with the methods provided for by the Council Decision: ‘In implementing the programme, in particular the technical selection of projects, monitoring and evaluation of projects benefiting from the programme’s funding, the Commission will ensure that it obtains the expertise of acknowledged specialists from the audiovisual sector in the field of professional training. To this end, it can if necessary involve intermediary organisations which, on the basis of their professional expertise, will provide technical assistance and will formulate proposals for the choice of the beneficiaries, without prejudice to other selection methods.’

Following a call for proposals, the Commission selected an intermediary organisation (Media Training intermediary organisation, based in Madrid) to provide it with the necessary technical assistance.

Moreover, the Commission avails itself of panels of independent experts for the process of selecting beneficiaries. These are recognised professionals in the sector. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/31

Use of funding allocated is determined by the contractual arrangements between the Commission and each of the beneficiaries. Monitoring is carried out mainly by the Commission, with technical assistance from the sectoral intermediary organisation which monitors performance of the contracts, and with technical assistance from the ‘horizontal’ intermediary organisation which monitors payment and collection; it is also assisted by random independent audits of the beneficiaries.

With regard to the success of the initiatives implemented, the Honourable Member should consult the above report.

(1) COM(1999) 91 final. (2) OJ L 321, 30.12.1995.

(2000/C 225 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1919/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Cuts in Ekpizo funds

Ekpizo is a well-known Greek consumers association recognised by the European Union which funds its programmes. Recently the Commission’s DG XXIV retroactively implemented Decision No 283/1999/EC (1) ‘establishing a general framework for Community activities in favour of consumers’ which entered into force in February 1999, cutting Drs. 15 million from the total amount due and suspending Ekpizo’s two programmes for 1999 which had been approved in 1998.

Given that the provisions of the Decision do not state that it applies retroactively, will the Commission say:

1. Why have these cuts been made to Ekpizo programmes?

2. What measures does it intend to take to ensure continued funding of the programmes that had been approved prior to publication of the above Decision?

(1) OJ L 34, 9.2.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 1999)

The Commission does not ‘recognise’ as such any national consumers associations. It has identified more than 125 associations among which a number of Greek associations, including Ekpizo, which are kept directly informed about European consumer protection developments by the Commission.

Ekpizo has presented for a number of years projects to be co-financed by the Commission. In 1997, the Commission agreed to finance two projects for a total amount of € 260 941 (DRA 81 million). In 1998, one project was financed by the Commission (€ 39 752). For the year 1999, two Ekpizo projects were approved in accordance with the procedures established by the legal base, Decision No 283/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 January 1999 establishing a general framework for Community activities in favour of consumers.

Under Article 7 of the contract signed by Ekpizo, the Commission decided to carry out a financial audit relating to the two projects financed in 1997. The main findings included the lack of any book-keeping which made control of total expenditure or total revenue impossible; the existence of unofficial receipts for salaries paid to free-lance employees and for suppliers, although official invoices are necessary to comply with Commission rules; and the fact that it was not possible to establish the effective payment of the counterpart of the Commission’s subsidy. As a result, the Commission decided not to pay the full amount for the two projects, but to retain a lump sum of 15 million Dra. This represents a reduction of less than 20 % compared to the payment foreseen and corresponds to the expenditure which has not been duly justified. C 225 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

The audit also clearly showed that Ekpizo did not dispose of the necessary own resources for the two large projects in 1999.The total cost of the two projects originally amounted to € 572 605, of which 50 % was to be financed from Ekpizo’s own funds. Ekpizo therefore decided to withdraw one of the two approved projects. As far as the remaining 1999 project is concerned, a final deadline of 15 October 1999 was given to present a financially acceptable project. To date, no modified application has been received by the Commission.

The decisions concerning the projects from Ekpizo concern therefore the basic rules concerning financial management, rather than Decision No 283/1999/EC as such.

(2000/C 225 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1927/99 by Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Criteria for respect for minority rights

One of the criteria for enlargement is respect for minority rights. However, no Commission publication contains an official list indicating what minority rights comprise.

The Commission is drawing up the second annual report on the progress made by the applicant countries. The conditions applicable to the various countries differ. Has the Commission drawn up a list of minimum requirements? What qualitative and quantitative criteria does the Commission use in order to assess whether minority rights are adequately respected, with reference to ethnicity, race, language and religion?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1999)

It is true, as the Honourable Member points out, that the Commission has not published an official list of minority rights. It notes, however, that such rights are set out in the 1996 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the 1992 UN Declaration on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom and, above all, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities drawn up in the framework of the Council of Europe in 1994. The rights referred to in these texts were taken into consideration when assessing the treatment and protection afforded to minorities by the countries applying for membership of the Union for the purposes of opinions on their accession requests in 1997 and the regular progress reports on individual countries sent to Parliament and the Council in 1998 and 1999. These opinions and reports show that the minority rights taken into account by the Commission relate to the preservation of ethnic and cultural identity, particularly language, religion, traditions and all other forms of cultural heritage. These rights also cover equality of treatment compared to people belonging to the majority in the various spheres of social and economic life, in particular access to employment, housing, education, goods and services, social protection and health care. The right to citizenship and the right on certain conditions to use the minority language in contacts with officialdom and in the courts, together with the right to association and freedom of expression, were also taken into account in the Commission’s analysis with a view to establishing whether the treatment of minorities was similar to the rest of the population. The rights in question also extend to protection of minorities against acts of hostility and violence on account of their ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that its analysis was carried out on the same basis for all the candidate countries and, while the terms of the appraisal might vary from one country to another, it is because the problems encountered differ, not the criteria used to assess them.

The Commission also reminds the Honourable Member that the positions it adopted concerning the upholding of minority rights in these countries, both in the opinions and regular reports, were arrived at after consultations with the highest authorities and organisations acting in this area at international level, namely the High Commissioner for National Minorities of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), the Council of Europe, the Helsinki Federation and Amnesty International. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/33

This action has already produced results within the candidate countries: improvements concerning the naturalisation of members of the Russian-speaking minority in Estonia and Lithuania and the law on the use of minority languages in official proceedings that has finally been adopted in Slovakia, to cite only a couple of examples.

Finally, the Commission would like to highlight the importance of its communication to the Cologne European Council on countering racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism in the candidate countries (1).

The Commission trusts that its ongoing analysis and criticisms of the situation in the candidate countries will lead to minority rights being fully upheld and protected.

(1) COM(1999) 256 final.

(2000/C 225 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1935/99 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Commission staff

How many full-time Commission ‘officials’ are working either directly or indirectly in the administration of the EU’s development and assistance programmes?

What proportion of the total full-time staff of the Commission does this represent?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2000)

Following the recent reorganisation of the Commission services, there are approximately 2 600 headquarters staff working in the six external relations services (external relations, trade, development, enlargement, humanitarian aid office and joint service for external relations). This represents 10 % of all personnel working in the Commission headquarters.

Of this number, almost 400 are employed in DG Development, with an estimated further 900 staff working in other external relations services on development cooperation and assistance programmes.

In addition, around 650 Commission officials are employed in the delegations in third countries. These staff are occupied on a wide range of external relations functions, including management of external aid programmes.

The staffing of the external relations family is as follows:

Officials External staff Total Headquarters External relations 666 99 765 Trade 379 65 444 Development 346 38 384 Enlargement 214 52 266 Joint service 551 126 677 Humanitarian aid office 118 19 137 2274 399 2673 Field Delegations 654 local staff 28 (1) 682 (2)

(1) Grade 1 local staff: A grade equivalent. (2) END’s, Auxiliaries, Interimaires. C 225 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1949/99

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

(19 October 1999)

Subject: Dealing with the millennium bug

In less than ninety days’ time, the new century will be upon us. In order to forestall public concern about the possible adverse impact of the millennium bug, the European Parliament asked the Commission at the beginning of this year (A4-0014/1999) (1) to inform it every three months, until the turn of the century, about progress in the EU in tackling the millennium bug. Regrettably however, the European Parliament has yet to receive any additional information from the Commission on the subject.

1. Why has the express request of the European Parliament not been complied with? Will the Commission now give Parliament the information requested by 1 December 1999?

2. In reply to a previous question by the undersigned (No 3570/98) (2), the Commission wrote that ‘nuclear safety is a national responsibility and each country must decide what actions are appropriate for it’. The fact remains, however, that any adverse consequences of the Year 2000 problem in the nuclear sector could affect public health and the economy throughout the EU or in large parts of it. What coordinating activities has the Commission undertaken and/or will it undertake to tackle cross-border problems within the EU arising from the millennium bug?

3. The approach being adopted to the millennium bug in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe is unclear, particularly as regards what is being done at nuclear installations. The IAEA is the lead international organisation in this field. Does the Commission have any up-to-date information from the IAEA and if so, can it indicate what the situation is as regards tackling the millennium bug in the nuclear sector in Central and Eastern Europe?

4. In view of the possible consequences for the EU, as referred to in question 2, what steps has the Commission taken, or will it take, to prevent any crossborder problems between the EU and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and have any agreements been reached on this? If so, what?

(1) OJ C 153, 1.6.1999, p. 52. (2) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999, p. 8.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 1999)

1. The Commission regrets that its reorganisation has led to perturbations in the administration which have delayed its response to the request of the Parliament within the timeframe which was originally specified.

Nevertheless, the Commission has prepared communications to the Council and Parliament on Community progress in tackling the millennium bug for the first (Q1) and second (Q2) quarters of 1999. The Q1 1999 report should be adopted in the beginning of November 1999, and the Q2 1999 report should follow closely during November 1999. The Q3 1999 report is currently in preparation and is expected to be available in December 1999.

2. Member States have indicated that they have taken measures to address the potential risk posed by the millennium bug to their nuclear power plants (NPP). They advise that there is no significant threat to nuclear safety. There is therefore no need for the Commission to increase its co-ordinating activities in the field of civil protection and exchange of radiological information.

3. The International atomic energy agency (IAEA) has now undertaken ten missions to various nuclear power plants, mostly in Central and Eastern Europe or the New Independent States. The aim of these 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/35

missions is to help the nuclear power plants assess the extent of their millennium bug problem. To date, these missions have found no problems in safety critical systems. They have found that 10-20 other systems, most of which provide information to operators, may be affected by the problem on each reactor. Failures in these systems, although not intrinsically unsafe in themselves, could, therefore, unduly overload NPP operators and lead to errors that jeopardise safety. All Central and East European countries and New Independent States have programmes to address the problems found and they intend to complete the necessary actions before the end of 1999.

The Commission is in regular contact with the IAEA and is co-ordinating its assistance activities with those of the IAEA. Currently, the Commission is providing Y2K-related assistance to a number of nuclear power plants and regulatory authorities.

4. The Commission has raised the issue of the millennium bug on various occasions with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and has received assurances that they are aware of the problem and have programmes to address it. In many areas, these countries appear to be adopting similar contingency plans to those of Member States. Representatives from these countries have also attended two workshops hosted by the Commission, the first on electricity grids and Y2K in July 1999, and more recently, a two day event which examined the Y2K preparations being carried out in various critical infrastructures, which took place at the end of September 1999. The minutes of these meetings are available on the Commission’s Y2K website: http://www.ispo.cec.be/y2keuro/year2000.htm.

The Commission is also represented on the steering committee of the International Y2K co-operation centre and participates in the activities which it organises in various regions throughout the world. There are no specific agreements in effect with these countries relating to the millennium bug, other than the assistance activities being carried out in the nuclear sector. The general approach taken has been to encourage the sharing of information and expertise.

(2000/C 225 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1959/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Phare

In its Special Report No 3797 the Court of Auditors pointed out irregularities in the context of the PHARE programme. I should therefore like clarification of the extent to which the Commission has taken account of the criticisms levelled by the Court of Auditors, in particular:

What has been done in the second stage of the Phare project to prevent contracts being broken down into several parts by SMEs so that the approval threshold is not exceeded, thereby precluding the Commission from fully exercising its supervisory function?

The Court of Auditors criticised the proliferation of SMEs, which prevented synergy effects from emerging. What has the Commission done to prevent this problem, and when were concrete steps taken?

Does the Commission have any information on the value of contracts concluded by direct agreement and without a tender procedure?

Does the Commission have information on how often and to what extent the costs of the original projects were exceeded and what costs were incurred for the EU as a result?

What was the level of costs for SMEs in the 1990-1996 Phare programme?

To what extent were the Phare appropriations available for the 1990-1996 programming period used up? C 225 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Has the Commission now found out who was meant by the phrase ‘the Russians who are responsible for the design of programmes’ and who thus received aid in the sum of ECU 1 million for SME projects?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

The Commission has issued instructions discouraging artificial splitting of contracts into smaller lots. In addition, the Commission delegations approve ex ante every contract with the exception of minor supply contracts, which are subject to ex post control. The control resources at the Commission delegations have been strengthened through deconcentration by transferring posts from the headquarters. Contracts above € 5 million are approved by the Commission in Brussels. These rules on procurement and approval procedures are spelled out in the Decentralised implementation system (DIS) manual, which is available on Internet http:/europa.eu.int//comm/dgla/phare/implementation/dis/contents.htm.

Following the special report of the Court of auditors on the decentralized system for the implementation of the Phare programme, the Commission adopted a strategy of phasing out Phare management units (PMUs) on a progressive basis. This process started in 1997 and will be completed by the partner states on the basis of a specific memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the candidate countries. The PMUs are phased out either by closing them as their programmes come to an end or by transferring their projects to public authorities in the candidate countries. For the national programmes approved in 1998 there are 39 such bodies for all 10 candidate countries, compared with the total of 138 at the end of 1995 identified in the Court of auditors’ special report, covering the six countries in which the decentralised system had been introduced.

The proportion of programme expenditure awarded by direct agreement in 1996 was 5,2 %. This has fallen in 1997 and 1998 to 2,2 %. These are contracts awarded to commercial bodies for which there is a market for services. The proportion of programme expenditure awarded by agreement with public sector bodies or international organisations in 1996 was 35,5 %. This proportion remained unchanged in 1998. These are agreements with organisations such as the European Bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD), the World Bank, the Council of Europe, or the European training foundation. At the national level, agreements have been concluded with national public administrations to assist the candidate countries in the field of justice and home affairs. Agreements have also been concluded with public organisations, non- governmental organisations or ministries in the candidate countries. There are clearly cases where there is no market for services, and therefore no basis for launching a tendering procedure.

The costs of projects are set within fixed budgets which are specified in each contract. If for unforeseeable reasons there is a need to increase the budget of a project, the relevant addendum is made according to fixed rules and always before any extra costs are incurred. Costs incurred in excess of the approved budget are not covered by the Phare programme.

No global figures for management costs were identified in the special report of the Court of auditors. As pointed out by the Commission in its reply to the Court of auditors, it would be arbitrary to estimate the administrative costs of PMUs given that they, in addition to management support, provide technical assistance. The Commission is now in the process of decreasing the financing of operating costs of PMUs as part of the strategy of phasing out PMUs mentioned above. According to this strategy, the candidate countries are normally expected to cover all operating costs of the implementing bodies following a transitional period of three years.

During the period 1990-1996, the use of Phare appropriations can be summarised as net commitments made € 6 589 million; net contracts made € 5 961 million; and payments made € 5 333 million.

The Commission is not aware of the phrase in the special report No 3/97 to which the Honourable Member refers. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/37

(2000/C 225 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1964/99 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Impact of the Schengen visa on competition

In recent years, it has become increasingly common among Austrian haulage companies to employ citizens from central and eastern Europe holding a six-month Schengen visa but no work permit as drivers for journeys within Europe for financial reasons. As a result of this common practice, Union citizens have found it increasingly difficult to find employment in this sector.

In view of this, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Is the Commission aware of the above-mentioned practice?

2. Approximately how many people from central and eastern European countries are granted six-month Schengen visas both in Austria in particular and in the EU as a whole?

3. What measures does the Commission consider to be appropriate to curtail this practice which is detrimental both to the labour market and to competition in the Union?

4. Has the Commission investigated this matter?

5. Does the Commission consider that this practice is compatible with EU competition law?

6. If not, what measures does the Commission intend to take to curtail this practice?

7. If so, how does the Commission justify its position?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

1. The Commission is aware of the increasing number of drivers from outside the Community that are employed often illegally by haulage firms in the Community. The Commission is concerned about the distorting effects of this practice on road haulage competition within the Community and considers this issue to be a very pressing problem within the national and international road haulage industry.

As regards in particular the practice of Austrian hauliers to employ drivers from East European States as described by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to point out that this is illegal according to the relevant Austrian rules.

2. The Commission is not in possession of the information requested.

Nevertheless, the Commission would underline that the Schengen acquis does not include provisions concerning rights of employment. A uniform ‘Schengen’ visa is a travel visa valid for one or more entries, provided that neither the length of a continuous visit nor the total length of successive visits exceeds three months in any half-year, from the date of first entry (Article 11 of the Schengen Convention). The length of a visit covered by a uniform ‘Schengen’ visa is not always up to three months per six month period: the length of visit fixed by Article 11(1)(a) constitutes a maximum limit.

Attention should also be drawn to the pending Commission proposal for a Council and Parliament directive on the conditions for posting of third country workers in the framework of provision of services (1). The proposal aims at introducing the ‘EC service provision card’ to be granted by the authorities of the Member State where a service provider is established. The proposal does not apply to the transport sector, but underlines that only those third country workers can be posted in the framework of cross border provision of services if they are and have been lawfully employed for a certain time (at least 6 months) in the Member State where the employer is established. This element has been introduced to avoid direct recruitment of third country nationals in third country countries, a situation described in the written question. C 225 E/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

3. and 4. In order to grasp the extent of the problem of the often illegal use of non-Community drivers, the Commission has asked the Member States to provide an overview of the diverse social, labour and transport rules applied by them in this area. Obviously this is only a first step in exploring possible ways to address this issue. Once the Commission has gained an overview of the relevant rules and details determining current practice, it will consider what action must be taken.

5. to 7. It cannot be excluded that the use of non-Community drivers on Community vehicles in intra- Community transport may have distorting effects on road haulage competition. The issue has to be analysed and solutions must be sought, as pointed out above, by preference within the framework of the diverse social, labour and transport rules applied in this area.

(1) OJ C 67, 10.3.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1966/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: EU project ‘Natura 2000’ Repercussions on the situation of individuals under private law

Various Austrian federal states have registered certain areas of their territory under the EU project ‘Natura 2000’ including the Federal State of Lower Austria which has registered 31,63 % of its total surface area. Under this project, the Member States are obliged to ensure compliance with the directive on the preservation of bird life and the ‘flora-fauna-habitat directive’ in the designated areas. In drawing up the corresponding lists of designated areas, most landowners were neither asked nor informed even though this entails major restrictions on property rights and use.

In view of this can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What department or agency in the EU is responsible for the implementation of this project?

2. Which areas have been registered for the ‘Natura 2000’ project in the various Austrian federal states and in Lower Austria in particular?

3. What are the consequences for landowners? Can the Commission provide detailed information in this regard?

4. What legal provisions are there for owners of land in ‘Natura 2000’ registered areas to opt out of the project?

5. Can a local authority which has registered under the ‘Natura 2000’ project withdraw such a registration?

6. What are the consequences for landowners in such cases?

7. Are the actions of the Federal State of Lower Austria in registering certain areas under the ‘Natura 2000’ project without the prior consent of landowners compatible with current EU law?

8. If not, what does the Commission intend to do about these illegal actions? To what extent are landowners, who are affected by the actions of their Federal State of Lower Austria which are incompatible with EU law, obliged to comply with the provisions restricting property rights contained in the abovementioned directives?

9. If so, is the Commission of the opinion that these actions are at least questionable in the light of the provisions of the ECHR (restrictions on the rights of property owners, independence of authorities interfering with the rights of individuals under private law)? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/39

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1999)

Within the Commission the environment Directorate general oversees the implementation of the Natura 2000 network.

Natura 2000, the European ecological network of special areas of conservation, involves sites designated under two environmental directives. Special protection areas (SPAs) are designated by Member States under Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1), and the Commission is notified. Under Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) Member States propose sites of Community interest (SCIs) and later designate them.

The identification and selection of sites as well as definition of their boundaries for inclusion in Natura 2000 is exclusively a scientific exercise. Single landowners do not therefore have a role in this exercise. All data on the sites identified in Austria were formally communicated to the Commission by the Austrian authorities in application of the relevant criteria. There is no mechanism foreseen in the directives for the withdrawal of designated or nominated sites by Member States. However, should objections on a scientific basis occur, these should be brought to the attention of the Commission by the Member State.

Seventy-three sites have been formally designated as SPAs in Austria, of which nineteen are in Lower Austria, and 113 sites have been formally proposed as SCIs in Austria, of which nineteen are in Lower Austria. For details on each site the Honourable Member is kindly invited to address the Austrian authorities.

As far as detailed information on consequences for landowners is concerned, it should be noted that directives are binding as to the result to be achieved, but leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. The Natura 2000 network is based on the principle of subsidiarity. It is up to the Member States to determine how best to conserve the sites that are identified as being of Community importance. The consultation of landowners is not mentioned in the directives and is a matter for the Austrian authorities to decide. Any decision on whether or not to consult and its consequences, including the fulfilment of international treaties, is up to them.

The inclusion of areas in Natura 2000 is not intended as a block on human activities. The emphasis is on ensuring that human activities are sustainable and not damaging to the conservation values. Management plans, involving owners and users, can be a valuable tool in addressing this objective.

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

(2000/C 225 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1968/99 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Definition of peat in the Directive on the taxation of energy products

In its proposal for a Council Directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products (COM(97) 0030 C4-0155/97 97/0111(CNS)) (1), the Commission also deals with the taxation of peat. In Finland, for example, peat bogs are an important natural resource, and the turf squares cut out from them cover some 7 % of Finland’s energy requirement. Some 6 500 people derive their livelihood either directly or indirectly from peat production. As yet, peat has not been classified as a renewable energy source like wood. In fact, peat is a renewable natural resource comparable with wood, with a longer cycle of renewal.

The use of peat is essential if we are seeking to use renewable natural resources in energy production. Without the co-use of peat, wood-burning boilers could not be sufficiently productive and would not be profitable. Peat is only used in local energy production, and thus has no influence on the European internal market. C 225 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that the energy taxation directive currently in preparation takes account of the importance of peat in regional energy production? Does the Commission propose in future to define peat as an intrinsically renewable resource? Does the Commission intend to ensure that the efficient use of peat remains possible in future for the purpose of energy production in the Nordic countries?

(1) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997, p. 14.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1999)

The Commission proposal for a Council directive on a Community framework for the taxation of energy products, mentioned by the Honourable Member, deals with all energy products, including peat. Peat whether or not agglomerated is covered by article 2, paragraph 1(c) of the proposal as falling under combined nomenclature code number 27 03.

The Commission considers that the proposed directive establishes a flexible Community framework for the taxation of energy products such as peat, which makes it possible for Member States to restructure their national tax systems to attain national objectives in environment, employment, transport and energy policies, while respecting a key Community achievement: the single market.

The Commission further considers that fuel peat has specific characteristics which makes it difficult to classify. As an organic material formed over several thousand years by the accumulation of plant debris under anaerobic water-logged conditions, peat contains most of the organic compounds of the original plants which formed it and could therefore be regarded as an organic based fuel. Nevertheless, the Commission, due to the renewal time of several thousand years, does not consider fuel peat as an intrinsically renewable resource. This is in line with the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change (IPCC) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories under the United Nations framework Convention on climate change (UNFCCC).

The Commission is aware of the importance of peat as a regional energy resource, which contributes to energy supplies, in particular in isolated areas. Security of energy supplies is one of the key energy objectives pursued by the Commission. Diversification and exploitation of indigenous energy resources, including the use of peat in the Nordic Member States and elsewhere in the Community, is an important policy in this respect. Moreover, national policies that combine production of peat with conservation of significant peatland areas and an appropriate implementation of an after-use policy could have a positive life-cycle impact on overall greenhouse gas emissions from peat production and use.

The role of peat as an energy source is further analysed in a technical and scientific study commissioned by the Commission, entitled ‘Evaluation of the fuel peat industry in the enlarged European Union’ and carried out jointly by a number of peat research organisations in the Community. A copy of the study is forwarded to the Honourable Member as well as to the Secretariat General of the Parliament.

(2000/C 225 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1980/99

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Polish tariffs on yoghurt imported from the EU

Polish tariffs have been progressively phased out as part of the Europe Agreement. The tariffs on fruit yoghurts gave fallen from 35 % in 1995 to 30 % (1996), 25 % (1997), 20 % (1998) to the current level of 9-12 %. In April 1999 the Polish authorities abolished the 9 % preferential tariff for fruit yoghurt with a fat content greater than 3,5 %, since when the GATT tariff of 35 % has applied. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/41

On 24 August 1999 Poland announced application of the safeguard clause for all fruit yoghurt imported from the EU under the Europe Agreement. Mr Plewa, Polish Deputy Minister, announced, firstly, application of the clause for a period of two years; secondly, an EU import quota (16 000 t for 2000 and 17 000 t for 2001); and, thirdly, application of the preferential tariff for imports under the quota and a 29 % tariff on imports not covered by the quota.

These measures have an extremely distorting effect on the market and they prevent fair competition between EU producers and Polish producers.

In general the economic climate is no advantage to EU yoghurt producers. The export refund which has been the subject of considerable criticism from Poland amounts to 14 % of the price ex frontier, while the tariff is 12 %. Consequently, the price of untreated milk is 30-40 % below that of German milk.

1. What is the Commission’s attitude to the foregoing?

2. What action will the Commission take to stop firms with registered offices in the European Union being placed at a disadvantage?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

The Polish Government informed the Commission in a note verbale dated 24 March 1999 that it was invoking a safeguard clause in respect of the importation of flavoured yoghurt from the Community falling within headings 0403 10 (flavoured or containing added fruit, nuts or cocoa) and 0403 10 93 0 (other yoghurt containing between 3 % and 6 % of milk fat). The Community’s preferential tariff for these products was 9 %; this was raised to 35 %.

The Polish Government justifies the measure on the grounds of the massive increase in imports of flavoured yoghurts from the Community in 1998. Total imports of such products rose from 552 tonnes in 1996, to 4 601 tonnes in 1997 and 30 900 tonnes in 1998. In the first half of 1999, imports of flavoured yoghurt from the Community reached 39 000 tonnes (January to May 1999). In 1998 Community yoghurt accounted for 25 % of the total Polish domestic market for all types of yoghurt. Poland also points out that in addition to introducing an import duty of 9 % in 1999 for yoghurt of these headings under Protocol 3, the Community increased the export refund for this category of products.

The Commission immediately objected to Poland’s use of Article 30 of the Europe Agreement between the Community and its Member States and Poland as justification for applying a safeguard clause, and replied with a note verbale of 27 May 1999, after the position had been discussed in the Agriculture and Fisheries Sub-Committee on 13 and 14 April 1999.

Pursuant to the third sub-paragraph of Article 33(2), both sides agreed to hold technical consultation meetings to set a timetable for removing the safeguard measures as soon as circumstances allowed. Following the third technical consultation meeting on 24 August 1999, the Polish side notified the Commission of an amendment to the safeguard measures.

Poland has given assurances that these are temporary measures, for two years only, and that a quota will be opened for the community on the basis of average exports from 1996 to 1998 (16 000 tonnes in the first year, 17 000 tonnes in the second year), to which the duty provided for in Protocol 3 shall apply. The immediate application of a duty of 29 % on Community exports in 1999 and on imports above the quota in 2000 and 2001 is equivalent to most-favoured-nation status, compared with the 100 % applied to other third countries.

The Commission has noted the new measures, applicable from 17 September 1999, and reserves the right to ask Poland to suspend the measures depending on how the Polish market develops. C 225 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2029/99 by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Community subsidies for school milk

The press and various associations are currently drawing attention to the present and planned further reductions in Community subsidies for school milk following a decision by the Commission.

Child nutrition experts and specialists argue that milk is essential for children’s growth and that school milk schemes make it possible to reach sections of the population which, even today, do not have a sufficiently rich or balanced diet.

The Commission’s plans, which are worrying both from a farming point of view and with regard to public health, raise a number of questions:

1. The Agriculture Council of 14 and 15 June 1999 took the view that the consumption of milk should be encouraged because of its high nutritional value, particularly for children and young people.

Why, then, has the Commission gone against the general opinion of the Member States and taken a decision that could jeopardise school milk schemes?

2. Just as the Treaty of Amsterdam has elevated public health policy to the rank of a horizontal Community policy, how can the Commission, in the name of narrow budgetary considerations, risk endangering the health of European children who benefit from the nourishment that school milk provides?

3. From a financial perspective, how can the consumption of milk be encouraged in a cost-effective way, taking account of the overall availability of budgetary resources? Could the subsidies concerned conceivably be transferred from the CAP budget to the health budget so that school milk schemes may continue with due regard for the budgetary constraints?

(2000/C 225 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2054/99 by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Abolition of European aid payments for the distribution of milk in schools

Reports are widespread of the Commission decision reducing, then abolishing, Community subsidies for the distribution of milk in schools.

According to child nutrition specialists milk is an essential food for child development. The distribution of milk in schools is, moreover, still useful today in reaching certain sectors of the population who do not enjoy a balanced diet.

This plan is disturbing in terms of both agriculture and public health.

As the Agriculture Council on 14 and 15 June 1999 took the view that milk consumption should be encouraged because of its nutritional value, in particular for children and young people, why is the Commission taking a decision that runs counter to the Council’s opinion?

At a time when public health has just been given the status of a horizontal Community policy under the Treaty of Amsterdam, how can the Commission risk endangering the health of European children who benefit from this nutritional supplement in schools?

Can the Commission therefore deny the information that has been published and reassure the citizens of Europe? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/43

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-2029/99 and E-2054/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Based on the theory that the Community aid scheme would be discontinued from 2000 as recommended in an evaluation report, the Commission’s budget proposals for 2000 included a reduction in appropriations for Community expenditure on subsidising school milk.

In the light of the arguments put forward during the resultant detailed discussion of the scheme’s future at the Council meeting of Agriculture Ministers on 14 and 15 June 1999 (to which the Honourable Member refers), the Commission has re-examined the issue and now proposes that aid for school milk should continue but that Member States should part-finance the expenditure entailed.

This new approach is justified firstly by the need to observe the budgetary constraints governing agricultural expenditure, under which priority must be given to less expensive market support measures than the school milk scheme. Secondly, the Commission wishes to emphasise that national part-financing could improve the scheme’s combined effectiveness. The Commission regards the Honourable Member’s suggestion of alternative funding under health policy as an interesting idea which merits further examination, and sees national part-financing as the only viable way of taking non-agricultural objectives into account.

(2000/C 225 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2047/99

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Number of stars on the European Union flag

Can the Commission explain why, when the European Union was expanded from 12 to 15 nation states, the number of 5-pointed golden stars on the EU flag did not increase to 15?

Can it explain the procedure (if any) by which Members of Parliament may propose and decide on changes to the European Union flag?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1999)

The stars of the European flag do not represent the Member States.

According to the decision of the Council of Europe which adopted the European flag in 1955 the number of stars is invariably twelve.

In a resolution adopted in April 1983 (1) the Parliament recommended that the Community’s flag should be that adopted by the Council of Europe in 1955. It was introduced by the institutions of the Community in early 1986.

(1) OJ C 128, 16.5.1983. C 225 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2055/99 by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Addition of imidacloprid to Annex I of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92

In January 1999 the French government adopted a provisional ban on the use of the Bayer insecticide ‘Gaucho’ (active ingredient: imidacloprid) for sunflower crops in France. Between 1993 and 1997 beekeepers based in central and western-central France noted that their harvests of sunflower honey were falling constantly. These falls in production were attributed to losses of foraging bees as the crop was flowering. The extent to which the nectar flow diminished correlated with the increase in the area sown with sunflower seed treated with ‘Gaucho’.

The November 1998 summary report of a study on the effects of phytosanitary products on bees, with particular reference to the effects of sunflower seed treated with Gaucho on the disappearance of foraging bees (Mih-Hà PHAM-Delegue, Inra, and Sophie Cluzeau, Acta), which was undertaken with EU support (under Council regulation No 1221/97 (1)), concluded that laboratory tests indicated that bees could be at risk from concentrations of imidacloprid likely to be present in treated sunflowers under field conditions.

Field observations made as part of this study do not corroborate the risks shown in the laboratory. However the study indicates that this risk could have been obscured or compensated for by the presence of imidacloprid in plants at the test sites. Despite the fact that on three of the four test sites there had been no plantings of seeds treated with ‘Gaucho’ since 1995 or 1993, imidacloprid was detected in some of the plants and the nectar products derived from non-treated crops. There is clearly a problem with persistence of imidacloprid in the soil, apparently over long periods.

In view of the serious suspicions concerning this pesticide, will the Commission take the initiative to add this product forthwith to the list of substances in the annex to Regulation EEC No 3600/92 (2)?

(1) OJ L 173, 1.7.1997, p. 1. (2) OJ L 366, 15.12.1992, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1) sets up a harmonised framework for the authorisation, placing on the market, use and control of plant protection products in the Community.

In 1992 the Commission adopted Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work under Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC covering the evaluation of a first list of 90 important and widely used active substances in agriculture covering an estimated 30 % of agricultural uses. This programme, which continues, permits the development of expertise and mutual confidence-building in Member States and the Commission.

The Commission is currently preparing the next phase of the review programme. It is expected that this would result in early 2000 in the adoption of further implementing measures for the review of the remaining existing active substances. It is the intention to speed up the review, based on experience with the first programme. All the remaining existing active substances (with a few exceptions such as micro- organisms or plant extracts) would be covered.

Directive 91/414/EEC provides also that Member States may review at any time authorisations if there are indications that any of the authorisation requirements are no longer satisfied. This would be the case so far for the authorisation of imidacloprid in certain crops.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/45

(2000/C 225 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2059/99 by Karin Scheele (PSE) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Decommissioning of Bohunice nuclear power station

In a decision dating from 1994 the Slovakian Government announced the closure of both V-1 reactors at the Bohunice nuclear power station in 2000. This decision was also incorporated into Agenda 2000. At the end of September it rescinded this decision and submitted a new timetable postponing the closure until 2008. Commissioner Günther Verheugen welcomed this decision.

In the opinion on Slovakia’s application to join the EU, the Commission maintains that after a modernisation phase for improvement of the safety level (until 1999) the A1 prototype reactor will be finally decommissioned. As part of the accession partnership the Slovakian Republic is committed to implementing a realistic programme for decommissioning the Bohunice nuclear power station. The Commission’s November 1998 report on Slovakia’s progress towards accession already singled out for criticism the fact that operating the reactor on a longer-term basis after 1999 is compatible neither with the accession partnership nor with the Slovakian Government’s decision of 1994.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

1. What view does it take of the Slovakian Government’s most recent plans concerning the timescale for its entry into the European Union?

2. Will it in future pay particular attention to implementation of the timetable specified in the accession partnership and, where necessary, take appropriate action?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1999)

According to the definitions of the 1992 Group of seven most industrialised countries meeting in Munich, there are at Bohunice two VVER 440/230 reactors (units 1 and 2 at Bohunice V1) which are not upgradable at reasonable cost, and two reactors VVER 440/213 (units 3 and 4 at Bohunice V2), which are upgradable. The old Bohunice A1 reactor was stopped in 1977 and is currently under decommissioning.

The original design lifetime for units 1 and 2 at Bohunice V1 are 2008 and 2010 respectively. During the past years the Slovak government has been investing an important amount of money (about € 200 million) to increase the security standards of Bohunice V1 (units 1 and 2), with a view to licensing them to operate, respectively, until 2010-2012 or even beyond. Despite these investments, the decision has been taken to bring forward the closure of Bohunice V1 to 2006 for unit 1 and 2008 for unit 2.

The Commission considers these dates realistic and credible. It will make every effort to ensure that these closing dates will be respected.

The 1999 accession partnership clearly indicates that the preparation for the closing down and decommissioning of Bohunice V1 is a key priority. The Commission will follow the developments regarding Bohunice V1 with particular attention. The Commission is ready to support and closely co-operate with the Slovak authorities to reach the objective of early shut down and decommissioning of the Bohunice V1 reactors, particularly through the provision of financial support and expertise. Progress will be regularly assessed in the context of both the pre-accession instruments and the accession process.

(2000/C 225 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2063/99 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Inequality in the treatment of EU citizens in the welfare sector

On 28 September 1999 Eurostat released a study entitled ‘Social benefits and their redistributive effects in the EU’, revealing sharp inequalities in the treatment of EU citizens in terms of the pensions and other social security benefits they receive. C 225 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

The study reveals that the proportion of people receiving such assistance varies widely across the EU Member States assessed therein.

Paradoxically, in some instances the standard of living enjoyed by the recipients of these social security benefits matches that of the remainder of the population in the country concerned and in other instances even exceeds the average.

The impact of the various benefits on reducing the number of ‘poor people’ is very uneven, since the extent to which the said benefits are targeted at this sector of the population varies considerably from one Member State to another.

Furthermore, in some cases the other social security benefits paid out to citizens are virtually on a par with the pensions they receive, whereas in other cases they amount to far less.

Can the Commission corroborate these facts? If so, what is its assessment of the extent to which the treatment received by EU citizens in the welfare sector differs? Can the Commission say what precautions it will take to reduce these disparities?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

This analysis on the redistributive effect of social benefits in the Community was undertaken by the Commission in collaboration with the French ministry of employment and solidarity. It is based on the 1995 wave of the European Community household panel (ECHP), which is the only Community harmonised source for data on income in general and social transfers in particular. The ECHP is a survey based on a sample of some 60 500 Community households (170 000 individuals).

The analysis confirms that on average about a quarter of the total income of Europeans is made up of social transfers; pensions guarantee a standard of living to those drawing pensions which is close to the standard of living for the population as a whole; social benefits other than pensions are intensively targeted at the sector of the population with the lowest incomes and succeed, as a result, in reducing the proportion of people living on a low income by a quarter or more in most Member States. The higher inequality and poverty before transfers and the higher the share of such social transfers in total income, the higher their impact on reducing poverty and disparities in income.

These findings illustrate and confirm the important redistributive effect of social transfers and benefits as an important principle of the European social model. Moreover, as data include cash transfers only (and not benefits in kind), the redistributive impact of social protection is likely to be even higher.

The analysis also highlights significant differences between Member States and the need for strengthening cooperation at Community level. The Commission has proposed ‘A concerted strategy for modernising social protection’ (1), based on dialogue, exchange of experience and evaluation of ongoing policy developments, to guide future action and cooperation in this field.

(1) COM(1999) 347 final.

(2000/C 225 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2066/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Private storage aid for cheese under Regulation (EEC) No 2659/94

For several years now, the Italian Ministry for Agriculture and the bodies coming under its authority have been discriminating against some producers of PDO Grana padano cheese by preventing them from 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/47

benefiting directly from the private storage aid available under Regulation (EEC) No 2659/94 (1). This has led to substantial loss of income for such producers and hampered their ability to compete freely in the marketing of their products. Even after the entry into force of new Community and national provisions on PDO and PGI products, the ‘consorzi di tutela’ (regulatory bodies) have, against payment, continued to certify cheeses subject to such certification as being of sound, merchantable quality, without having the right to do so and, furthermore, without inspecting them when they are placed in storage. This situation has continued even after Ministry of Agriculture authorisation was granted to private certification firms and the Central Anti-Fraud Office.

Given the above, would the Commission state:

1. whether it is aware of this situation;

2. whether individual producers or groups of producers may benefit directly from the aid available under Regulation (EEC) 2659/94;

3. whether the precedence given to the ‘consorzi di tutela’ over the authorised private certification firms should not be deemed to undermine the independence and freedom to compete of those firms;

4. whether the ‘consorzi di tutela’ meet the requirement that bodies responsible for certifying PDO and PGI products must be ‘third parties’;

5. whether it would not agree that action should be taken against the Italian Government in view of the manifest irregularities which have arisen during implementation of the provisions of Regulations (EEC) 2081/92 (2) and 2659/94?

(1) OJ L 284, 1.11.1994, p. 26. (2) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

In the absence of concrete, detailed information on the matter, the Commission is not in a position to give a full and final response regarding the complaints made by the Honourable Member.

Nevertheless, the Commission wishes to clarify the following points concerning the relationship between 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, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2659/ 94 of 31 October 1994 on detailed rules for the granting of private storage aid for Grana padano, Parmigiano-Reggiano and Provolone cheeses, cited by the Honourable Member, as regards the protected designation of origin ‘grana padano’.

Under Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, ‘An inspection structure may comprise one or more designated inspection authorities and/or private bodies approved for that purpose by the Member State’. The designated inspection authorities must offer adequate guarantees of objectivity and impartiality and have at their disposal the necessary staff and technical resources. In addition, from 1 January 1998 private bodies must fulfil the requirements laid down in standard EN 45011.

However, fulfilling the requirements of this standard does not necessarily confer on a private body the right to certify products with the ‘grana padano’ protected designation of origin. Article 10 gives national authorities a certain flexibility when designating inspection authorities for each protected name. Conse- quently, the Commission could not require the Italian authorities to approve any private body that fulfils requirements laid down in standard EN 45011, as meeting this standard does not in itself confer any rights.

The Italian authorities have designated the private body CSQA (Certificazione qualità agroalimentare) to carry out the inspection of production of this cheese.

Quite clearly, if the cheese were not inspected by CSQA, it could not bear the ‘grana padano’ name and consequently no aid under Regulation (EC) No 2659/94 could be claimed. C 225 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2659/94, private storage aid for grana padano cheeses may be granted to any natural or legal person able to prove ownership of the cheeses in private storage and complying with the regulation, and in particular the undertakings mentioned in Article 3 point (d).

If the Honourable Member considers that these requirements were not fulfilled, the Commission would be grateful if he could pass on any concrete evidence to prove this, to allow the appropriate proceedings to be initiated within the limits of and in accordance with the powers available to the Commission under the principle of subsidiarity.

(2000/C 225 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2087/99 by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Application of the Packaging Directive to ornamental plant growing

It is not possible to decide on the basis of either Directive 94/62/EC (1) or of the Commission’s interpretative memorandum of 10 June 1999 whether flower pots do, or do not, constitute packaging within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that Directive or, indeed, whether they fall within the scope of the Directive at all. As a result, each Member State has to decide itself which flower pots are clearly functional and which are used primarily as packaging. The situation thus varies from one Member State to another. Nevertheless, the purpose of the Packaging Directive, as specified in Article 1 thereof, is to ensure the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.

Is the Commission not worried that differing interpretations of the concept of packaging could lead to serious distortion of competition amongst ornamental plant growers in the various Member States?

Will it clarify whether flower pots that are not ‘intended to remain with the plant for the whole of its life’ do, or do not, constitute packaging? Is it possible to interpret the Directive in such a way that no flower pots of any kind are included within its scope?

Will the Commission indicate which Member States regard flower pots as ‘packaging’ within the meaning of Directive 94/62/EC, and which do not?

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The definition of packaging has proved difficult to interpret in certain specific cases, such as flower pots. The Commission is fully aware that differing interpretations of the concept of packaging could lead to market distortion. For that reason, the Commission has been working on the issue with experts of Member States. The outcome of these discussions is that it would be useful to complement the current definition by a new technical guidance annexe to the Directive. This technical guidance would be based on the results of the exchange of opinions held in the frame of a structured dialogue between all those involved in the packaging chain Member States, industry, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and consumers.

The definition of packaging in Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, can only be interpreted by the Court of justice.

An exhaustive list of the different interpretation of flower pots as ‘packaging’ in the Member States is not currently available. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/49

(2000/C 225 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2089/99 by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission

(8 November 1999)

Subject: Right of asylum for EU nationals in other Member States or in third countries

Following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, asylum policy was incorporated into the EC Treaty under Title IV (‘Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to the free movement of persons’).

The Protocol on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union which has been attached to the EC Treaty states that the Council shall be immediately informed if a Member State should decide to grant asylum to a citizen of another EU Member State, thus confirming the central role played by the Council in the exchange of information on asylum and immigration matters between the Member States.

As a result of the above developments, EU citizens may, as a general rule, be granted asylum by third countries, but not by EU Member States, which means that the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees no longer fully apply.

Have there been cases in which citizens from one EU Member State have been granted asylum by another Member State or a non-Community country, either before or after the entry into force of the EU Treaty and the Protocol on asylum? If so, on what grounds?

Would the Commission not agree that a study should be conducted as a matter of urgency to identify and remove the causes behind applications for asylum being made to third countries, with a view to offsetting the restrictions placed on the right of European citizens to seek asylum in another Member State?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 1999)

The protocol on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union requires a Member State to inform the Council if it decides unilaterally to consider an asylum application from a national of another Member State. The protocol does not require a Member State to inform the Council if it decides to grant asylum to a national of another Member State. Although the Commission did not advocate the inclusion of the protocol on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union in the Treaty of Amsterdam, it notes that the preamble to the protocol states that it respects the finality and objectives of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the status of refugees. In addition, declaration No 48 to the Treaty of Amsterdam states that ‘The Protocol on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union does not prejudice the right of each Member State to take the organisational measures it deems necessary to fulfil its obligations under the Geneva Convention on 28 July 1951 relating to the status of refugees’. Nothing in the protocol would prevent a Member State from granting asylum to a national of another Member State if that person was a refugee within the meaning of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees.

The number of cases in which nationals of one Member State have applied for asylum in another Member State is relatively low.

In relation to applications for asylum submitted by a national of one Member State in another Member State, for 1992 to 1994 (for 12 Member States), the following corrected data (see the answer to written question E-1356/97 by Mrs van Dijk (1)) is available:

1992: four applications (two in Belgium, of which one was from a German national and one was from a French national; one in Denmark from a UK national; one in Greece from a German national).

1993: twelve applications (six in Belgium, of which two were from Spanish nationals, three were from Portuguese nationals and one was from a UK national; two in Denmark, of which one was from a German national and one was from a French national; three in Spain from French nationals; one in Portugal from a German national). C 225 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

1994: nine applications (five in Denmark, of which two were from German nationals, two were from French nationals and one was from an Irish national; four in Spain, of which one was from a German national, one was from a French national, one was from an Italian national and one was from a Dutch national).

Since enlargement of the Union in 1995, the following data relating to the 15 Member States is available:

1995: seven applications (five in Denmark, of which four were from German nationals and one was from an Italian national; one in Spain from an Italian national; one in Finland from a Dutch national).

1996: thirteen applications (five in Belgium, of which one was from a German national, two were from Spanish nationals, one was from a Dutch national and one was from a UK national; three in Denmark, of which one from a German national, one was from a Swedish national, and one was from a UK national; one in Spain from an Italian national; two in Austria, of which one was from a Danish national and one was from a German national; one in Portugal from a Spanish national; one in Finland from a French national).

1997: twenty-seven applications (two in Belgium from Portuguese nationals; five in Denmark, of which one from a German national, one was from a Greek national, one was from an Italian national, one was from a Swedish national, and one was from a UK national; seven in Germany, of which two were from Greek nationals, one was from a Spanish national, one was from a Dutch national, one was from a Portuguese national, one was from a Swedish national, and one was from a UK national; three in Spain, of which one was from a Greek national, one was from an Italian national, and one was from a Dutch national; ten in Sweden, of which two were from Danish nationals, four were from German nationals, one was from a Spanish national, one was from an Italian national, and two were from UK nationals).

Data for 1998 and 1999 are not yet available. The information available does not indicate the grounds on which asylum was requested.

As regards applications for asylum by nationals of Member States in European economic area (EEA) countries (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and Switzerland, the data available to the Commission for the period from 1995 to 1997 only indicates applications made in Switzerland in 1997 (19 applications, of which one was from a Belgian national, eleven were from German nationals, one was from a Greek national, one was from a French national, three were from Italian nationals, one was from a Dutch national, and one was from a UK national).

The Commission understands that in the six months following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, there have been no cases in which a Member State has notified the Council pursuant to point (d) of the sole article of the Protocol on asylum for nationals of Member States that it is has decided unilaterally to examine an application for asylum which has been submitted to it by a national of another Member State.

The Commission is aware of two cases in which the national of one Member State has been recognised as a refugee in another Member State: in 1991 an Italian national was recognised as a refugee in the Netherlands and in 1997 a German national was recognised as a refugee in Portugal. The information available does not indicate the grounds on which the persons concerned were recognised as refugees.

The Commission is not aware of any cases in which nationals of Member States have been recognised as refugees in EEA countries or in Switzerland in the period from 1995 to 1997 for which data is available.

As regards applications for asylum by nationals of Member States in non-Community countries and grants of asylum in such cases, with the exception of the data relating to EEA countries and Switzerland mentioned above, the Commission does not compile data on such cases.

The Commission has no plans to undertake a study on the reasons why some nationals of Member States may have lodged asylum applications in third countries.

(1) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/51

(2000/C 225 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2093/99

by Alexander Radwan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Reduction of the areas eligible for assistance in West Germany including Berlin

In July 1999 the Commission decided to reduce the area designated by the Federal Government as eligible for assistance in the West German Länder and Berlin from 23,4 % to 17,6 % and to initiate proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany to examine this assistance.

1. Will the Commission reconsider its position, on the basis of infringement of the principle of equality, and consider leaving the assisted area based on a 23,4 % ceiling?

2. If the Commission considers that a return to the 23,4 % ceiling is impossible, could it envisage a joint agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany on the approved area for assistance which is appreciably higher than 17,6 %?

3. How does the Commission view the proposal that the previous transitional solution should be retained, whereby consideration could be given to applications for assistance made before a district was excluded from the areas eligible for assistance?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2000)

The first two questions are at the moment being closely scrutinised as part of state aid investigation No C 47/99. All the grounds that were taken into consideration by the Commission in initiating proceedings are given in the relevant decision, which was published in the Official Journal (1).

With a view to achieving the objective of cohesion and in the light of the forthcoming enlargement, the Commission has decided to reduce regional aid coverage in the Community to 42,7 %. For Germany, this means a reduction to 34,9 %.

The relative reduction in coverage in Germany is smaller than that for the Community as a whole.

The figure of 34,9 % applies both to the areas covered by Article 87(3)(a) (ex-Article 92) of the EC Treaty and to those covered by Article 87(3)(c). On the basis of socio-economic data, a population coverage of 17,3 % was set for Article 87(3)(a) areas (five new Länder) and one of 17,6 % for Article 87(3)(c) areas (assisted areas in western Germany and Berlin).

This figure was calculated using an objective method that was applied equally to all Member States and is described in Annex III to the guidelines on national regional aid (2). The Commission also took account of several objectives of the Treaty and, in the interests of the general good, weighed them against one another. This did not suggest any unfair discrimination between the different situations in the individual Member States.

The third question likewise relates to a ongoing notification procedure (No 209/99). The Commission is unable at the moment to comment on the transitional arrangements for the areas to be excluded from the joint Federal Government/Länder scheme in question since the Commission is awaiting the reaction of the German Government.

(1) OJ C 340, 27.11.1999. (2) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998. C 225 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2101/99

by Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) and Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Rejection by the Commission of Italy’s proposal relating to Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for the 2000-2006 period

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Communities and to Regulation No 2160/99 (1)on the Structural Funds, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What reasons led to rejection of the allocation proposal submitted by the Italian Government?

2. How in particular does the proposal need to be redrafted in order to secure acceptance?

3. How much time is allowed for redrafting?

4. Has any assessment been carried out of the allocations for each region? If so, what is the situation as regards the various regions of Italy?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2000)

On 1 July 1999, the Commission established the ceiling on the population in each Member State eligible under Objective 2. That for Italy was set at 7,4 million inhabitants. On the same day, Member States were invited to forward to the Commission, before 31 August 1999, their proposals for the areas eligible under Objective 2.

1. On 1 October 1999, the Italian authorities forwarded their proposal to the Commission. It was considered inadmissible because it did not comply with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/ 1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, which requires the areas meeting the so-called ‘Community’ criteria, listed in Article 4(5) and (6), to include at least 50 % of the population covered by Objective 2 in each Member State. The areas meeting these criteria submitted by the Italian authorities covered only 2,2 million inhabitants, 29,6 % of the total population eligible.

2. On 11 October 1999, the Commission asked the Italian authorities to draw up as soon as possible a revised proposal which conformed to the regulatory requirements. To do that, they will have to add to the original list at least 1,5 million inhabitants from areas meeting the Community criteria and, on the other hand, exclude from this list an identical number from areas presented under paragraphs 7 to 9 of Article 4.

3. So far, the Commission has received no new revised proposal from the Italian authorities and so is not in a position to indicate when it will be able to adopt the list of the areas eligible under Objective 2 in Italy.

4. As soon as it receives the Italian proposal, the Commission will evaluate it, both overall and by region, in the light of the criteria in the Regulation. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/53

(2000/C 225 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2105/99 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 November 1999)

Subject: New methods for finding persons trapped inside the wreckage of buildings

The recent earthquakes in Turkey, Greece and other countries around the world have drawn attention to the extremely serious issue of persons trapped inside the wreckage of buildings and the need for effective search and rescue methods.

Up to now rescue teams have been using accounts and information given by survivors, sound detection (acoustic method) and micro-cameras (visual method), as well as trained dogs.

According to experts, other methods of finding trapped persons could be developed and used, based on the detection of chemicals emitted by the human body in various situations, and especially in difficult circumstances such as being trapped in buildings which have collapsed.

It appears that methods like these have been tested for military purposes.

Would the Commission be willing to aid the development and use of similar methods for use by rescue teams dealing with earthquakes and trapped victims?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

The Commission has in the past financed at least one pilot project to build an appliance which uses microwave radar to detect persons trapped in rubble. The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s Internet site at the following address: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/ prote/cpactiv/cpact08e.htm, where further information on the project is available.

Under the Community action programme in the field of civil protection, it falls to the national authorities to determine the content and scope of any pilot projects in this area with a view to incorporating the results into rescue team practice. On this basis, the Commission will be prepared to examine the funding of a project proposed in this area.

Research and development related to novel technical solutions may be granted financial Community support within the fifth framework programme for RTD (1), provided that the rules of participation as well as the contents of the workplans of the thematic programmes are respected.

(1) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2123/99 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba (TDI) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Objective 2 for the 2000-2006 period and the reasons for the rejection of Italy’s proposals

The Commission has declared the Italian government’s proposals concerning the areas eligible for Objective 2 for the 2000-2006 period ‘inadmissible’, has refused to examine their contents, and has asked the government to rewrite them all.

This refusal is likely to delay considerably the allocation of funds to the regions and the subsequent implementation of structural policies, and also to jeopardise, perhaps to the benefit of other countries, the funds’ commitment and expenditure capacities. C 225 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

When the framework regulation on the Structural Funds was adopted, the Commission was supposed to have committed itself to taking into account the particular circumstances of individual Member States when making an overall examination of the eligible zones.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What are the reasons that have led to this drastic decision, for which there is not even any provision in the above-mentioned regulation?

2. Does the Commission not consider that it has failed to take sufficient account of possible opportunities for derogation connected with Italy’s particular circumstances?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

1. The proposed list of areas eligible for Objective 2 sent to the Commission by the Italian authorities on 1 October 1999 was considered not to be acceptable because it did not comply with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). This paragraph stipulates that in each Member State the areas meeting the ‘Community’ criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) must contain at least 50 % of the population eligible for Objective 2 assistance. However, the areas put forward by the Italian authorities in compliance with these criteria contained only 2,2 million people (i.e. only 29,6 % of the total eligible population).

2. The Commission considers that the Regulation, which was adopted by all the Member States and received the assent of the European Parliament, provides considerable scope for accommodating the specific circumstances of Italy and that it is not necessary to resort to derogations from the regulatory framework.

For example, the Italian authorities are not obliged to submit a proposal for all of the areas meeting the Community criteria (the population of which is 5 021 900). All they are required to submit is a list of areas satisfying these criteria in which the total population is at least 3 701 000.

They are also permitted to calculate 50 % of the eligible population according to ‘national’ criteria laid down in Article 4(7) to (9) of the Regulation.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2124/99 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: The United Kingdom and the transposition of the Community directives relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles

In the United Kingdom at present, the Road Traffic Act 1991 prescribes a sentence of between five and ten years’ imprisonment in cases concerning careless and/or reckless driving causing death, while the level of civil compensation laid down is insignificant and offensive to the feelings of the family, equating as it does a human life with the cost of a small car.

The European Union has already legislated on this matter to bring about the approximation of the Member States’ laws (Directive 72/166/EEC (1) of 24 April 1972 and Directive 84/5/EEC (2)) and Directive 90/232/ EEC (3) of 14 May 1990 specifically states that ‘motor vehicle accident victims should be guaranteed comparable treatment irrespective of where in the Community accidents occur’. The deadline for transposition of this directive was 31 December 1992 and any extensions are exclusively limited to the ‘Member States whose economies show differences in development’ and, therefore, do not apply to the United Kingdom. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/55

It is also well known that there are significant variations between the Member States regarding the amounts paid as compensation for personal injury.

The Commission:

1. Can it investigate whether the above-mentioned directive has been transposed into national law and applied correctly, or whether in this case a contravention has occurred?

2. Does it not think it would be advisable to adopt a legislative proposal designed to harmonise the levels of compensation for personal injury resulting from road accidents?

(1) OJ L 103, 2.5.1972, p. 1. (2) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17. (3) OJ L 129, 19.5.1990, p. 33.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

The Commission is aware of the existing differences in the level of civil compensation for personal damages as a result of motor accidents throughout the Community. Such differences not only exist between the Member States but often within a Member State, depending on the court which is competent to decide an individual case. This situation is not a consequence of the lack of implementation or of the inappropriate application of the Community insurance directives but of the coexistence in the Community of different national legislation on civil liability which is not harmonised. Furthermore in most Member States national legislation, which provides for minimum compensation amounts for compulsory motor insurance, does not specify the compensation for the different categories of personal material and non- material damages. These compensations are decided by the courts for each individual case.

The first, the second and the third motor insurance directives (Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability; second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles; third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles), mentioned by the Honourable Member have been implemented into national legislation by all Member States. These directives not only deal with the minimum compensation amounts for compulsory insurance but with other important elements for consumers such as the coverage of all the occupants of the car, limitations on exclusion clauses in the policy and setting up a compensation body or guarantee fund to cover accidents caused by uninsured or unidentified vehicles. The application of these directives seems to be satisfactory in general terms, although, where a case of inappropriate implementation or application has been detected, the Commission has not hesitated to contact the Member State in question or, when necessary, open the relevant infringement proceedings.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that a fourth motor insurance directive (common position (EC) No 24/1999 of 21 May 1999 adopted by the Council acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the Community, with a view to adopting a Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Directives 73/239/ EEC and 88/357/EEC (1)) in order to facilitate the insurance compensation for damage to victims having an accident in a Member State other than the Member State where they are resident was proposed by the Commission and is now being discussed in the second reading by the Parliament. Furthermore, the Commission carried out in 1999 a survey on the modernisation of the motor insurance directives involving all interested parties and is setting up a working group on this matter with the participation of Member States authorities.

(1) OJ C 232, 13.8.1999. C 225 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2127/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 November 1999)

Subject: Upholding the law of competition in the canvassing for sponsors for EURO 2000

ISL Worldwide has obtained from UEFA almost exclusive rights for promotion and advertising in connection with the EURO 2000 football championships. The marketing firm is making the organisation of an activity in the host cities dependent on financial support for an official sponsor (i.e. one recognised by ISL Worldwide). The host cities are not, however, permitted to make contact on their own initiative with the official sponsors for their activities. ISL Worldwide has nonetheless admitted that these rights have been granted to the official sponsors.

ISL Worldwide’s de facto monopoly is inconsistent with European competition law. The firm maintains that the rights relating to the host cities are held by the official sponsors, but forbids the host cities to negotiate directly with them.

1. Is ISL Worldwide’s ‘advertising and promotion contract’ consistent with European competition law, given the de facto monopoly on all promotion and advertising activities connected with the EURO 2000 football championships?

2. What steps will the Commission take to ensure that contracts governing promotion and advertising activities connected with the EURO 2000 football championships are consistent with European competition law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1999)

The European Football Championship in 2000 is being organised by the EURO 2000 Foundation under the auspices of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). For the marketing of the event arrangements are made with ISL Worldwide, a leading media and marketing company for large-scale popular sports events with extensive international media exposure. It is also agreed by UEFA, the EURO 2000 Foundation, ISL Worldwide and the eight host cities that all negotiations will take place on an individual basis to cater for the individual needs of each city involved (1).

The agreements mentioned above concerning the marketing of the UEFA European Football Championship in 2000 have not been notified to the Commission, in contrast to the UEFA ticketing arrangements for this event. Until now, no formal complaint has been lodged against these promotion and publicity contracts for EURO 2000, nor against similar contracts in the past. Therefore, it is at present not possible for the Commission to assess whether the contract referred to is in accordance with the European competition rules.

However, the Commission, also taking into account the problems that arose in the framework of the organisation of the football World Cup finals in France in 1998 (2), intends to monitor closely the organisation of the EURO 2000 event. Currently, the Commission is examining proposals relating to the sale of match tickets for EURO 2000. The Commission will also gather factual information concerning the marketing contracts of the EURO 2000 event, and will then see whether it will launch an investigation into these marketing contracts.

(1) This is the result of a meeting of 7 October 1999 concerning the marketing rights for the organisation of EURO 2000. (2) On 20 July 1999, the Commission adopted a formal legal decision (C(99)2295/2) against the local organisers of last year’s football World Cup finals tournament in France (Comité Français d’Organisation de la Coupe du Monde de Football 1998, or ‘CFO’), following the implementation of discriminatory sales arrangements in relation to entry tickets for finals matches. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/57

(2000/C 225 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2135/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Abolition of tax-free shopping and the impact on jobs

On 1 July 1999 sales of duty-free goods in ‘tax-free shops’ finally came to an end. These shops sold certain products (e.g. perfume, cigarettes and alcohol) tax-free to passengers on international flights. The ban followed a decision by the European Summit in Cologne on 3 and 4 June 1999 to apply Article 12 of the Sixth Council directive on VAT No 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 in full. The article in question permitted intra-Community sales free of tax until 30 June 1999.

For a variety of reasons there was considerable opposition to the abolition of tax-free shopping in the European Union, e.g. because of the negative effect on jobs. The Commission and the Council have always argued that the ban on tax-free shopping would not lead to a loss of jobs. However, the evidence emerging from the industry is different. For example, sales at Sky Shops in Zaventem have fallen by a quarter since 30 June 1999. Management have been obliged to make 60 full-time employees redundant.

1. How many persons were employed full-time in tax-free shops in the European Union on 1 January 1999?

2. How many persons were employed full-time in tax-free shops in the European Union on 1 June 1999?

3. How many persons were employed full-time in tax-free shops in the European Union on 1 July 1999?

4. How many persons were employed full-time in tax-free shops in the European Union on 1 October 1999?

5. On the basis of the answers to questions 1-4, does the Commission acknowledge that the number of full-time jobs in tax-free shops in the European Union has fallen?

6. Does the Commission feel that these job losses are due to the abolition of tax-free shopping in the European Union? If so, is the Commission prepared to review the ban on tax-free shopping? If not, to what does the Commission attribute the loss of jobs in the tax-free shops sector?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

The Commission always recognised that the abolition of duty-free sales for intra-Community travellers might have an impact on employment. This was the reason it could agree with the Council in 1991 to grant a transitional period for the phasing out of duty-free arrangements.

More recently, in its communication to the Council concerning the employment aspects of the decision to abolish tax- and duty-free sales for intra-Community travellers (1), the Commission once again acknowledged that the abolition of duty-free sales is likely to affect employment. The impact was estimated by the Commission to be time limited and specific in terms both of localities and sectors affected, with maritime activities being potentially the most affected. This result was corroborated by estimates supplied by Member States on the foreseeable employment effects of implementing the Council’s decision to abolish intra-Community duty-free sales. The Commission’s analysis however also showed that, in the medium term, revenue recycling and sales re-location could well lead to a net creation of jobs. C 225 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

The Commission does not have the requested information regarding the number of people employed in duty-free shops. The reason for this is that statistical data is only available on employment in the whole retail sector as such (2). In its analysis of the employment aspects of the Council’s decision, the Commission therefore based itself on industry estimates of jobs affected by the abolition of duty-free sales (3). These aggregate estimates however did not disclose the underlying employment figures for duty-free shops.

As regards the employment impact of the abolition, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply given to written question E-1999/99 by Mr Davies (4).

(1) COM(1999) 65. (2) ‘Retailing in the European Economic Area 1997, Luxembourg 1998’ by the European Commission (Statistical Office of the European Communities, DG XXI). (3) See point 5 of the communication. (4) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 109.

(2000/C 225 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2141/99 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Consulting operators in the AL-Invest Programme

On 23 September last the LAADC committee approved a new financial framework for the AL-Invest Programme covering the next four years. The programme’s operators apparently had little opportunity to participate in the preparatory discussions. To be more precise, the European side was not consulted at all, whilst just one meeting was held with the Latin American side.

Does the Commission not believe that a system of communication ought to be set up to guarantee closer involvement for those concerned, with a view to enhancing the programme’s effectiveness and guaranteeing the transparency in the Commission services called for by Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 1999)

As to the first part of the question, the Commission would emphasise that direct contact with the operators is paramount. To this end, meetings were held in London (1998) and Barcelona (1999) under the title ‘Connect’ to enable operators to exchange ideas with the Commission over two days (in addition to the direct contacts between operators to prepare proposals for business encounters, which was the primary function of Connect). Each of these meetings enabled us to take stock of all the technical, administrative and financial aspects on which the success of the programme depends. Connect will be held in autumn each year between 2000 and 2004. In addition, direct and individual contact with operators takes place as necessary by e-mail and by post. Moreover a Web site has been set up, with a ‘members only’ Intranet section reserved for operators (www.al-invest.org). The technical secretariat set up to support and advise operators will be maintained up to the end of 2005.

This demonstrates the extent of the communications system made available to operators.

As to the conferences organised in 1999 in connection with Phase 2 of Al-Invest, one was held for European operators (February 1999), one for Latin American operators (June 1999), and one for both European and Latin American operators (October 1999, Connect, Barcelona).

There was only one significant change to the timetable: Phase 2 was presented to the LAADC Committee on 23 September 1999 instead of 14 October 1999: this may perhaps have taken some operators by surprise. The reason was quite simply that this enabled Phase 2 to be financed from 1999 instead of from the 2000 budget as initially proposed, which obviated the need for a stop-gap between Phases 1 and 2 of Al-Invest. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/59

Moreover, the Commission received the recommendations made at the meeting of the Spanish Coopecos on 20 September 1999 in good time and intends at all events to deal with them appropriately.

(2000/C 225 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2143/99 by Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Serious damage to chestnut groves in various parts of Calabria

The sharp drop in night-time temperatures in early October caused considerable damage to chestnut groves, seriously jeopardising the entire harvest in various parts of Calabria, particularly in the municipalities of Cicala, Sorbo San Basile, Gimigliano, Carlopoli, Sersale, Petronà, Petilia, Mesorarca, San Pietro Apostolo, Serrastretta, Decollatura, Soveria Mannelli, Conflenti, Platania, Fossato Serralta, Pentone, Pedivi- gliano, Colosomini, Bianchi, Panettieri, Taverna and many others.

Can the Commission take action to support the areas stricken by this disaster, given that a large portion of the local population earns a living primarily from the harvesting, processing and marketing of chestnuts?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

Community legislation does not authorise the Commission to intervene to provide compensation for losses of income caused by natural disasters.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2085/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guidance Section (1) (for the period 19941999) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (2) (for the period 2000-2006) provide only for the possibility of assistance from the EAGGF for the reconstitution of agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters and the introduction of appropriate means of prevention.

Measures will be selected and proposed by the national or regional authorities, as appropriate. In the case of the natural disaster in question it is therefore for the regional government of Calabria to determine whether the nature of the damage is such that it is possible for the EAGGF to provide part-financing under the abovementioned legislation.

The Member States are currently drawing up the programmes for 2000-2006 and according to the information available there are no plans for EAGGF aid to be granted in the case referred to.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2153/99 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Working conditions and competition at Piaggio

Over the past few months the Italian Government has granted special incentives for the scrapping of motorcycles. This has led to a higher turnover for motorcycle manufacturers. At the same time, however, C 225 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Piaggio, one of the top companies in the sector, has introduced tough shifts in which workers have had to work at weekends and on bank holidays throughout the summer with the same pay and harsher working conditions (the temperature can reach 40° C on the shop floor). Many workers have also been laid off, resulting in further loss of wages.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does the Commission therefore not think that the above-mentioned incentives could have been justified only if extra jobs had been created which was patently not the case at Piaggio?

2. Does it not believe that the Piaggio management should be censured for its disregard of European rules on working conditions?

3. Is it not of the opinion that, unless Piaggio’s increased turnover brought about by the above incentives leads to new jobs or improved working conditions, the ensuing capital, which could be invested by the company, could become an unfair competitive advantage, to the detriment of free competition?

4. Will the Commission give its general views on the matter?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

According to the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Italian Government has introduced special grants for the owners of old motorcycles for scrapping them. These grants are paid to all owners of old motorcycles regardless of make. Owners must then purchase a new motorcycle, allowing manufacturers, especially Piaggio, to increase their turnover significantly.

On the basis of this information, the Commission sees this as a general consumer aid measure, rather than aid to a company in possible contravention of Article 87 of the EC Treaty. All companies manufacturing similar vehicles in Italy have benefited from the ‘replacement market’ created by the State measure in question. Furthermore, it was neither the aim nor the effect of the measure to reduce Piaggio’s costs. Consequently, the measure does not appear to contravene Community rules on State aid.

Council Directive 93/104/EC (1) on the organisation of working time lays down minimum requirements with regard to breaks, daily and weekly rest periods and maximum average working time of workers. The Italian government has not notified the Commission of its measures to implement this directive. The Commission has brought this failure to notify it of the relevant national measures before the Court of Justice (pending case C-386/98). On the basis of the information presented, it is not possible to judge whether the provisions of the directive and any relevant national provisions have been respected or not.

Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (first individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC (2)) states in Annexes I and II (Minimum safety and health requirements for workplaces used for the first time after 31 December 1992 and for workplaces already in use before 1 January 1993 respectively) that the temperature in rooms containing workplaces must be adequate for human beings during working hours, having regard to the working methods used and the physical demands placed on the workers (cf. 7.1 of Annexes I and II). Italy has communicated to the Commission the national measures implementing Directive 89/654/EEC, which correctly transpose the minimum requirement relating to workplace temperature. It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure adequate controls and monitoring of the national provisions transposing the Directive. This means that any questions regarding enforcement must be referred to the Italian authorities, which must organise and carry out the inspections and checks necessary to ensure proper enforcement.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. (2) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/61

(2000/C 225 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2160/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Responsibility for freedom of movement and public safety

The pressing problem of security, with reference to illegal immigration, was discussed at the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999. It has now finally been acknowledged that immigration is an issue to be dealt with at European level, rather than by each Member State working on its own. There has nonetheless been a failure to understand the difference between the freedom of movement established following the abolition of internal borders, which comes within the Union’s sphere of responsibility, and the management of public safety issues, which is the responsibility of the Member States, whose laws have not been harmonised and are in some cases totally dissimilar. For example, the sale and use of self-defence devices, such as sprays used to ward off attacks by bag-snatchers or rapists, is permitted in some Member States, while in others even their very use is prohibited.

Without going into the merits of an internal market within which some products are legal in certain Members States and illegal in others, does the Commission not consider that it would be useful and appropriate, pending the implementation of the ‘third pillar’, to call on the Member States, as part of action to combat crime and protect the public, to ensure that basic self-defence devices such as sprays and low-voltage electrical fences are legalised in all Member States, with, if necessary, each being free to lay down its own rules governing the sale and installation or use of such devices?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

According to the Treaty on European Union, and as confirmed by the special meeting of the European Council held on 15 and 16 October 1999 in Tampere, one of the objectives of the Union shall be to provide citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice.

This shall be done by, inter alia, developing common action among Member States in the fields of police cooperation.

Common action in the field of police cooperation shall include cooperation and joint initiatives in, among others, the use of equipment.

Any action developed in this context shall not, nevertheless, affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

The measures suggested by the Honourable Member seem to fall under the said responsibilities of Member States.

Moreover, the Commission reaffirms its willingness to promote the full and immediate implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam on the basis of the Vienna action plan and of the political guidelines and concrete objectives agreed by the European Council in Tampere.

(2000/C 225 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2164/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Inquiry into rising foreign exchange costs

Will the Commission confirm that there has been a very sharp rise in the foreign exchange dealing costs between the euro and the pound sterling over the past year, and will it consider whether there has been any illicit collusion between participants in this market, or whether there is an abuse of a dominant position? C 225 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1999)

The Commission is aware of cases where the foreign exchange dealing costs between the euro and the pound sterling have risen following the introduction of the euro. The Commission understands that this has arisen for the following reasons.

The bid/offer spread on foreign exchange markets is measured in ‘pips’. Thus, if the bid price for sterling/ euro is 0,6397 and the offer price is 0,6399, there is a spread of two pips. The Commission understands that prior to the introduction of the euro, the bid/offer spread on the retail market for sterling/deutsch- marks was in the region of five pips for GBP 5 million. Following the introduction of the euro, the bid/ offer spread on the retail market for sterling/euro is in the region of three pips for € 10 million. Given the difference in value between the euro and the deutschmark, although the spread has gone down in absolute terms, the cost in percentage terms has increased significantly. The Commission understands that there is also currently a bid/offer spread of around three pips for sterling/euro on the interbank market. This apparently makes it difficult for banks to charge less than three pips on the retail market.

These facts could suggest an absence of competitive pressure on providers of foreign exchange services to reduce their spreads, either at the retail level or at the interbank level or both. However, they are not evidence in themselves that infringements of Community competition law either have been or are taking place.

So far as the application of Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty is concerned, there are many hundreds of banks which deal in sterling/euro and provide foreign exchange services to corporate customers. It seems unlikely therefore that any individual bank is in a dominant position or that there are a number of banks which could be considered to be in a joint dominant position. As regards the application of Article 81 (ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty, the Commission has no evidence that collusion has taken place. Indeed, in general terms, successful collusion to maintain or increase spreads would probably require two elements, both of which appear to be missing on this market. The first is that there would need to be a relatively small number of participants in the collusion. A cartel involving hundreds of participants would seem most unlikely. Secondly, successful collusion would require some degree of transparency of prices in order to allow for enforcement. However, on the retail market, the spread is in principle only known to the buyer and seller. For these reasons, it might be considered that a spreads cartel on the foreign exchange retail market would be unlikely to succeed.

Finally, although the Commission has not received any formal complaint regarding the subject matter of the Honourable Member’s concern, it will continue to monitor the situation.

(2000/C 225 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2168/99

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Teleworking centres in Bavaria

The Bavarian land government wishes to establish so-called ‘teleworking centres’ in all administrative districts that are Objective 5b areas, as part of the ‘top-eleven’ programme. A total of 40 such centres are to be established in Bavaria. The amount of DEM 60 million is being contributed from public funds. The greater part of that amount consists of European aid allocations. The Objective 5 programme is contributing some DEM 17,8 million, and about DEM 7,5 million are coming from the European Social Fund. The Bavarian land contribution runs to about DEM 15 million.

A brochure has also been prepared. It does not contain a single mention of the fact that the greater part of the funding has been allocated from the EU budget. Nor is any indication to be seen on the ground, on any of the projects known to me, that European funding has been provided. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/63

1. Are there any provisions requiring Member State authorities that administer EU-funded projects publicly to acknowledge the source of such funding? If so, will the Commission reprimand the Bavarian land government on this occasion? If not, why not, and are any provisions to that effect in the pipeline?

2. To my present knowledge, the objective associated with the establishment of these centres of creating 600 new jobs in rural areas has fallen well short of its target. Has the Commission monitored this project for effective use of public funds, in relation in particular to job-creation? If so, with what results? If not, why not, and does it intend to do so?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

Operational programmes in the framework of objective 5b and Leader II and co-financed by the structural funds are designed on the level of priorities and measures, not at project level. Therefore the Commission usually has no knowledge of individual projects.

In the case of ‘top elf’ (English: top eleven) the Bavarian authorities informed the Bavarian objective 5b and Leader II monitoring committee that the Bavarian concept for the integrated use of telecommunication in rural areas (‘top elf’) fits into the measures of the operational programmes. It consists of a bundle of different projects which, for better visibility, were summarised in the concept ‘top elf’. These projects were connected with the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and European social fund (ESF) measures of the objective 5b operational programme e.g. measure 7 ‘forestry’ and ‘top elf’ project ‘forestry information system’.

Neither Commission nor monitoring committee were informed of the detailed amounts of money intended to be spent under ‘top elf’. The Commission has contacted the German authorities in order to verify the figures the Honourable Member mentioned in his question.

The Commission was not informed about the brochure, which was prepared by the Bavarian authorities on ‘top elf’.

1. Point E of the ‘horizontal clauses’, annexed to the Commission decisions on the operational programmes, lays down that Commission Decision No 94/342/EC of 31 May 1994 (1) concerning information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the structural funds shall apply.

The Commission is not in a position to confirm the Bavarian government did fulfil the requirements of the above mentioned publication in respect to the projects in question. The Commission is contacting the Member State in this connection.

2. As the operational programme is designed on measure level the Commission cannot carry out feasibility studies for projects. This is up to the Member State. In order to be able to deliver more detailed information the Commission is contacting the Member State.

(1) OJ L 152, 18.6.1994.

(2000/C 225 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2169/99 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Kerosene tax in civil aviation

The 1944 Chicago Convention stipulates that kerosene used as fuel in international civil aviation may not be subject to taxation. At the same time, flights within the EU, but between different EU Member States, continue to be treated as ‘international flights’, and thus to be covered by that exemption. The assumption C 225 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

is undoubtedly justified that the above convention is out of date and in need of fundamental review. A resolution (B5-0118/1999) was, moreover, recently adopted by the European Parliament calling in particular on the Commission to draw up a white paper on measures relating to civil aviation, which would include measures paving the way for taxes on kerosene fuel to be introduced.

The Commission consequently is asked: whether, pending completion of the said white paper, it will declare flights within the EU to be internal flights and on that basis immediately impose a tax on kerosene for use in civil aviation, the proceeds being used to fund environmental projects?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The Commission recalls its position on taxation of kerosene used in international aviation as presented in the report (1) recommending that excise duties on mineral oil should be extended to aviation kerosene as soon as the international legal situation allows the Community to levy such a tax on all air carriers including those from third countries. This position has not changed.

Following the debates in Council, the Commission commissioned a study on the analysis of the taxation of aviation fuel. This work has been completed and the Commission has presented its conclusions recently in the communication on air transport and environment to the Parliament and the other institutions (2).

The Commission does not, at this stage, intend to declare all intra-Community flights as domestic (national) flights in the sense of the Chicago Convention. It will in co-ordination with ongoing preparatory work at the level of the International civil aviation organisation (ICAO), continue its work on a range of market-based options including taxation aimed at reducing the environmental impact of air transport with a view to launch an initiative in 2001.

(1) COM(96) 549 final. (2) COM(1999) 640 final.

(2000/C 225 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2172/99

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Investment aid for flax processing

The Order of 5 April 1999 concerning a call for projects under Law 50/1985 on regional incentive measures, published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado Español (Official Bulletin of the Spanish State) of 25 May 1999 (p.197), grants a subsidy of Ptas 20 160 470 to the firm Colisur 2000 Ltd., Picón, Ciudad Real.

Under paragraph 2(12) of the annex to Commission Decision 94/173/EC (1) of 22 March 1994 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products, ‘All investments in the flax and hemp sector are excluded except where they concern products for new non-food uses or modernisation without increase in total capacity in the region concerned.’

In the Commission’s opinion, is the subsidy granted to Colisur 2000 compatible with the terms of this Commission decision and with other legislation in force?

(1) OJ L 79, 23.3.1994, p. 29. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/65

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Law 50/1985 on regional aid measures and the provisions implementing those measures constitute regional State aid scheme No 38/87, compatible with the common market and authorised by the Commission on 1 June 1987.

The purpose of the scheme is to provide financial support for productive investment in certain sectors in certain regions of Spain, granting assistance at a selective rate, so as to achieve a balanced distribution of economic activities over the country.

This scheme appears, on the face of it, an appropriate instrument to support the investment project mentioned by the Honourable Member, Colisur 2000 Sociedad Limitada, because the project relates to the agri-industrial sector (flax) and is situated in Castile-La Mancha, and in view of the intensity of aid, which is 17 % of the cost.

As this project involves agricultural products, it must, in addition to meeting the requirements imposed on all projects irrespective of sector of activity, comply with the ‘Guidelines and appropriate measures for State aid in connection with investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural products’ (1), and, as it involves flax, with point 2.12 of the selection criteria for investments annexed to Commission Decision 94/173/EC of 22 March 1994 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products and repealing Decision 90/342/EEC (2).

The management of the State aid scheme, including the analysis of each individual project and the selection of the most deserving, is up to the national Government and the regional authorities in accordance with their respective responsibilities. Consequently, the Commission has no detailed knowledge of the content of individual projects in receipt of a subsidy under this scheme.

However, the selection process established by the aforementioned arrangements for implementing Law 50/1985 (which were notified to the Commission in the course of authorisation) should ensure that all the aid granted is allocated to investment projects fulfilling the requirements of the national and Community legislation applicable. In the case of Colisur 2000, S.L. these requirements include the relevant selection criteria.

At all events, if the Commission received evidence that the conditions of the authorised aid scheme had not been fulfilled, it would take action in accordance with the procedure laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (3).

(1) OJ C 29, 2.2.1996, p. 4. (2) OJ L 79, 23.3.1994, p. 31. (3) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

(2000/C 225 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2173/99 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Olive oil stocks

Following the review of olive oil stocks, stock levels in Italy are 50 % lower than initially forecast, and in Greece approximately 30 % lower.

What does the Commission consider to be the cause of this enormous shortfall? Does it intend to revise downwards the production levels forecast for both countries in the light of this development?

Since the reliability of statistics will be of prime importance in the forthcoming common organisation of the market, what are the measures the Commission has taken and intends to take in order to avoid recurrence of similar situations in the future and to ensure that the new rules are fair and do not discriminate against other Member States? C 225 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

In connection with the activities of the economic committee of the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC) the Council’s member states notify a certain amount of statistical data, including data on carryover stocks.

The Community is a member of the IOOC and submits data relating to the Community.

The Honourable Member will be aware that from 1993/94 the Community had reservations regarding the IOOC’s statistics. These reservations were motivated in part by the lack of reliability of the data on the Community’s supply balance

At the 81st meeting of the IOOC the Community, after much work on the feasibility of the data, presented statistics which in its view most closely reflected the actual situation. This made it possible for it to lift its reservations regarding the IOOC data.

The review covered several marketing years and the supply balance statistics for the various producer Member States were adjusted where appropriate. Adjustments were also made to the Member States’ data on consumption, stocks and production, which must be taken to mean marketed production. The quantity aided can be different because it also includes a quantity calculated for payment to small producers.

After carrying out this necessary exercise in the case of data relating to the past the Commission took steps to make all the data more reliable in future. The most important of these measures are: the design of an objective method for calculating the olive yields of trees, which will help to improve knowledge of production upstream; stepping up checks at mills, particularly by introducing automatic olive weighing; and checking the destination of the olive oil produced.

Lastly, working together with the producer Member States, the Commission is stepping up checks at all stages of the production chain and is making sure that the rules, concerning both the quantity of olive oil produced and its quality, are complied with.

(2000/C 225 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2177/99 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Property speculation at Is Arenas

The protected area in the locality of Is Arenas (Oristano, Sardinia) is entered on the register of sites of Community importance coming within the Natura 2000 network (Bioitaly) under site code ITB 002228 pursuant to the directive on natural habitats, Directive 92/43 (1), and was funded by LIFE-Natura in 1995. That area, comprising wooded coastal sand dunes of great importance, is also subject to the following national or regional restrictions: a landscape planning restriction pursuant to Article 7 of Law 1497/1939, Ministerial Decree 27.8.1980 and Article 1 of Law 431/1985; a restriction on change of use and a requirement to comply with the crop-planting and conservation plan laid down in Royal Decree Law 3267/1923 (reform and amendment of the legislation on woodlands); and a hydrogeological restriction pursuant to Article 17 of Law 215 13.2.1993. It is also an area coming within the proposal for the demarcation of the boundaries of the Sinis-Montiferru regional nature park, table A, annexed to Regional Law 31/89. Despite these protective restrictions, in 1997 the region of Sardinia signed a Programme Agreement with the Is Arenas company for the construction of a tourist complex involving half a million cubic metres of concrete, 222 900 m3 of which is now being built, and has issued various planning permissions leading in the first instance to the felling of approximately 10 000 trees. The whole project, which is to consist of a residential tourist village for more than 6 000 people including service roads, golf courses and other facilities, does not appear to have undergone an environmental impact assessment pursuant to Directives 85/337/EEC (2) and 97/11/EC (3). The Court of Justice recently ruled that in the case of projects listed in Annex II to the above-mentioned directives, and the projects planned in Is Arenas come within that annex, a Member State does not have the power to exclude or exempt a project from the environmental impact assessment procedure where it has significant effects on the environment, by virtue inter alia of its nature, size or location (4). 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/67

Does the Commission believe that these decisions are compatible with the protection which is intended to be conferred on the area by including it in the Natura 2000 network? Does not this project nullify the effects of the Community funds provided through LIFE-Natura for the purpose of promoting sustainable development in the area? Have the requirements stemming from the directives on environmental impact assessment been complied with, especially in the light of the above-mentioned judgment of the Court of Justice? Are projects scheduled in that Programme Agreement co-funded by the Structural Funds? If so, to what extent and for what measures specifically?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (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.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The case, to which the Honourable Member refers, has already been drawn to the attention of the Commission. It concerns a project for the construction of a holiday village which is argued to be within the scope of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and to have a significant effect on certain proposed sites of Community interest (pSCI, under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora), and special protection areas (SPA, under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1)).

The Commission is waiting for the written and detailed information requested from the Italian authorities. This information is necessary in order to assess the case. The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

The project is not the subject of a co-financing arrangement under the structural funds.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2000/C 225 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2182/99 by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: CO2 emissions in Portugal

The 1997 Kyoto Conference on climate change saw Portugal, on the basis of its economic backwardness, negotiate the right to increase its CO2 emission levels to the year 2012 by 40 %, against the 1990 levels.

While the majority of EU countries agreed to lower their greenhouse gas levels, Portugal became the only country in the EU with the right actually to increase its emission of these gases.

However, last week, an exhaustive study on the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions was published by the Environmental Systems Analysis Working Party of the New University of Lisbon.

The study concluded that as of now, Portugal has already increased its levels of emissions by 34 % over 1990 values, and forecast that by the year 2010, Portugal will be emitting 62 % more CO2 than in 1990, far more than the extremely generous allowance of 40 % to 2012 actually agreed.

Given the seriousness of the situation, will the Commission please tell me, as a matter of urgency:

1. The most recent figures it has for greenhouse gas emission levels in Portugal;

2. What specific measures the Portuguese Government enacted with a view to controlling and lowering greenhouse gas emissions; C 225 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

3. Whether there are other countries, apart from Portugal, where the discrepancy between the ceilings of CO2 emission levels established in Kyoto and the levels currently forecast for 2012 is so glaring;

4. What it intends to do to avoid a potential general failure on the part of the EU Member States to meet the emission levels laid down at Kyoto?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

On 16 June 1998, the Council agreed on the contributions of Member States in order to achieve the 8 % reduction commitment of the Community in accordance with Article 4 of the Kyoto protocol. According to this agreement the so-called ‘burden sharing’ the majority of Member States have to reduce their emissions below the 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008-2012. Five countries, among them Portugal, are allowed emission levels above the 1990 base year. However, the increase of these emissions is restricted and, in the case of Portugal, this amounts to 27 % (for the six gases of the Kyoto protocol). This burden sharing agreement was made in view of different social and economic developments in Member States.

The study mentioned by the Honourable Member has not been made available to the Commission and therefore can not be commented upon.

The monitoring of emission levels in Member States is regulated by Council Decision 93/389/EEC of 1 24 June 1993 for a monitoring mechanism of Community CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions ( ) recently amended by Decision 1999/296/EEC (2). According to this Decision Member States have to submit annual inventories and provide information on their national programmes to combat climate change. On the basis of this information the Commission will report annually to Council and Parliament about the progress achieved.

The most recent greenhouse gas inventory received by the Commission from Portugal was in 1997 and covered the years 1990 to 1994. Figures included in this inventory show a 7,9 % increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 1994 compared to 1990 and an increase of 6 % when summing up the 3 main gases in CO2 equivalent (including methane and nitrous oxide taking into account their respective global warming potential). Unfortunately Portugal has not submitted data for more recent years. The same problem also exists for some other Member States. Furthermore, observed data for the Community as a whole as well as for most of the Member States indicate that CO2 emissions have been increasing since 1994. Presently, CO2 emissions in the Community are at about the 1990 level after having declined between 1990 and 1994.

Policies and measures devised by the Portuguese government to combat climate change are listed in Portugal’s second report submitted in 1997 to the conference of parties to the framework convention on climate change (FCCC) (available on the United Nations (UN) FCCC web site).

The Commission expects to receive in the coming months updated information from Member States with regard to national programmes established under the monitoring mechanism decision mentioned above, as well as national inventory data for 1997 and 1998. The Commission will report next autumn to the Parliament and the Council on the results of its evaluation whether the Community and its Member States are on course to fulfil their commitments under the UNFCC convention, taking into account the requirements of the Kyoto protocol.

In line with the Council conclusions of 12 October 1999, the Commission also intends to strengthen and speed up its efforts in the development and implementation of common and co-ordinated policies and measures that can facilitate and contribute effectively to fulfilling the commitments of the Kyoto protocol.

(1) OJ L 167, 9.7.1993. (2) OJ L 117, 5.5.1999. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/69

(2000/C 225 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2185/99

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Ban on tourist coaches by Rome municipal authorities

The City of Rome authorities intend to introduce a provision towards the end of 1999 under which the entire inner city will be completely closed to tourist coaches. Inside an extensive second zone extending out to the city’s ring motorway, coaches will be permitted only to drive, subject to authorisation and by pre-arranged routes, to designated parking places. From there, tourists are to be ferried to the inner city in urban shuttle buses. It will be made compulsory for coach companies to employ the services of high-cost Rome city ‘pilots’, and to use technical orientation and communications systems. City sightseeing tours will henceforth only be available in Rome city buses.

The following questions are asked:

1. How does the Commission view the compatibility of this provision by the Roman municipal authorities with the principle of freedom to provide services and freedom of movement?

2. What action will the Commission take to guarantee, where necessary, freedom to provide services and freedom of movement in Rome after autumn 1999?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2000)

The Commission was already aware of the problem reported by the Honourable Member. To understand the problem more clearly, a letter was addressed to the Italian authorities on 21 October 1999. Those authorities replied to the Commission on 2 December 1999, giving a full explanation of the plan to close the centre of Rome during the year 2000.

With regard to Community rules on access to the market for the carriage of passengers by coach and bus, Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (1) stipulates that carriers may carry out local excursions within the framework of an international occasional service. The question then is whether the plan to close the centre of Rome significantly restricts the possibility of carrying out local excursions within the meaning of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 684/92, given that all local excursions are not thereby banned on Italian territory. In other words, we need to gauge the proportionality of the Roman authorities’ move to regulate and organise city centre traffic in relation to the freedom to provide services established by the Community Regulation on the carriage of passengers by coach and, more generally, the principle of freedom to provide services established by Article 49 of the EC Treaty (former Article 59). Community rules cannot deprive local authorities of their power to manage and organise, provided they establish their rules in a non-discriminatory manner.

Regarding the use of Roman ‘pilots’, we again need to check whether or not the Roman authorities’ plan discriminates on grounds of nationality when it comes to recruitment. If it does not, the measure would not run counter to Community law.

The Commission is therefore looking at the dossier in full and will not fail, if necessary, to examine it within the framework of the infringement procedure laid down in Article 226 (former Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 74, 20.3.1992. C 225 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2188/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Review of the Bosman ruling

The ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) in the Bosman case (C 415/93) created a new framework for the free movement of sportsmen, which has since completely changed the face of sport in Europe, particularly football. Now, however, four years after the ruling, few still believe that the changes it brought about are moving in the right direction or that they are for the good of sport. A vitally important factor the identification of fans with their clubs is being totally eradicated as the clubs have been transformed, in reality, into multinational companies with the smaller clubs no longer having the incentive to produce and nurture sportsmen when they will very quickly fall prey to the voracious appetites of the big, financially powerful clubs. The ECJ’s decision to assess the case from the point of view of non-discrimination and freedom of movement alone, totally ignoring the obvious cultural, educational and ethical aspects of sport in general and of football, in particular, has been described by many as completely misconceived.

In the light of the above and the fact that a barrage of legal argument has been used to attack the grounds for the ruling as being partial, and given that that more and more voices at European level are calling for a review of the Bosman ruling, will the Commission say:

1. what its position is on this matter following the incorporation into the Amsterdam Treaty of Declaration No 29 on sport, which emphasises the social significance of sport and the particular characteristics of amateur sport and also provides scope for the bodies of the European Union to take action, and

2. whether, in that context, it will initiate any form of proceedings before the ECJ to review this ruling, or at least take some form of legal initiative to stem its repercussions and promote a solution that will take greater account of the cultural, social and educational role of sport?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the Bosman ruling confirmed that the principle of free movement of workers applies to the Community’s professional sportsmen at the end of their contract. This ruling condemned the payment of transfer fees and fees for training and development, particularly where these have no bearing on the real cost of training, in the case of international transfers, within the Community, of professional sportsmen at the end of their contract. It also condemned the imposition of limits on the number of players from other Member States who are allowed to play in competitions between clubs.

The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, is obliged to ensure that the Bosman ruling is observed.

With regard to the Commission’s position concerning the repercussions of this ruling on the organisation of sport in Europe, the Honourable Member should consult the communication of the Commission (1)on its report to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework (Helsinki report on sport). It is stated in this report that the Commission is prepared to work together with the sporting federations to examine alternatives to the transfer systems condemned by the Court, in order to ensure the balanced development of sport and the training of young sportsmen and women.

As regards revision of the EC Treaty, the Commission has published its contribution to the next intergovernmental conference. The proposal to enshrine sport in the EC Treaty was not adopted.

(1) COM(1999) 644 final. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/71

(2000/C 225 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2202/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Commission initiatives on the rights of consumers entering into contracts with airlines

Liberalisation of the air transport sector has had significant benefits for consumers, most importantly a greater choice of carrier and cheaper prices. However, if not implemented properly, deregulation can frequently have other, negative effects as a result of congestion in the skies and inadequate airport infrastructures. Passengers are affected by delays, which result in missed flights and other inconvenience. When such situations arise, the airlines hide behind the small print in the ticket purchase agreement to evade their responsibility.

Does the Commission intend to adopt measures to establish the airlines’ responsibility and ensure that passengers receive compensation when airlines do not adhere to their timetables or when their luggage is lost?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

The Commission is about to begin a major consultation on air passenger rights in the Community with a view to making a full assessment of the current situation and developing a new strategic approach to this issue in the coming year. A consultation paper will be launched in the near future. It will seek the views of both industry and consumers on delays and baggage, as well as a much wider range of other issues. Action will be taken in the light of the reactions received. One specific action on giving information to passengers has already been agreed for launch in the coming months the mandatory publication of punctuality indicators for airlines and airports.

There is already some provision in Community law for compensation for delayed passengers who are late arriving at their destination because the airline overbooked the aircraft. Such passengers are entitled to immediate compensation of up to € 300 under Council Regulation EEC No 295/91 of 4 Febraury 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport (1). A proposal (2) to amend the Regulation, improving the level of compensation and extending it to cover passengers who are delayed because an airline cancels their flight, is close to agreement. Extending compensation any further than this would require careful consideration since a large proportion of delays are caused by factors that are genuinely beyond the airlines’ control, notably air traffic delays.

As far as baggage is concerned, the Warsaw Convention of 1929 sets low maximum limits of approximately € 17 per kilo on airlines’ liability for any loss or damage during international journeys. The new Montreal Convention of May 1999 raises this limit to approximately € 1 300 per passenger. Compensation in excess of these limits is only possible where the passenger has agreed a higher figure in advance with the airline and paid any extra charges needed to cover additional insurance.The Commission will make proposals for Community ratification and implementation of the new Montreal Convention at the beginning of 2000.

(1) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991. (2) COM(98) 580 final.

(2000/C 225 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2204/99 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Agreements in the air transport sector and compliance with competition rules

In recent years, the Commission has been involved in analysing and regulating certain agreements between airlines in order to safeguard openness and competition on the markets in question. To this end, in the C 225 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

case of the alliances between British Airways and American Airlines, Lufthansa and United Airlines and KLM and Alitalia, the Commission has imposed very tough conditions on the airlines in order that these agreements may be considered as compatible with Community law.

Conversely, other agreements between airlines, although of a different nature, have received less attention or have simply been neglected. This seems to be the case, for example, with the code-share agreement between Sabena and Virgin Express on the Brussels-Rome route despite the fact that the immediate effect of this agreement was to reduce the number of competitors and frequencies on that route.

Does the Commission not consider that this agreement reduces competition and, consequently, the benefits to consumers in terms of quantity, quality and cost of the service?

More generally, what steps is it planning to take to counteract the anticompetitive effects of code-share practices as well as the lack of transparency and information for travellers which these practices may involve?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2000)

Through a code-sharing agreement, an airline can sell its tickets (using its own designator code) on a flight operated by another airline. The flight is then identified by the designator codes of both airlines. Such agreements are increasingly used by airlines, both inside and outside the Community. The Commission estimates that the fifteen largest Community airlines have concluded over 150 code-sharing agreements.

Since 1996, when a study on code-sharing was prepared for the Commission, the Commission has taken action to improve the transparency of these arrangements and ensure that passengers are better informed. Council Regulation (EC) No 323/1999 of 8 February 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 2299/89 on a code of conduct for computer reservation systems (CRSs) (1) now foresees that, in case of code-sharing, the actual operator of a flight must be clearly identified at the time a reservation is being made. This provision ensures that a passenger who buys a ticket with an airline X is informed from the outset that he will actually be flying with airline Y.

The compatibility of a code-sharing agreement with competition law depends on the contents of the agreement and on the route or routes affected by it. Certain code-sharing agreements have the potential to be pro-competitive. By lowering costs and increasing efficiency, a code-sharing agreement may for example contribute to maintaining service on a low-density route or establish a new route. Other code- sharing agreements can be anti-competitive because they may result in market sharing or prevent competitors from entering the market.

Code-sharing agreements must therefore be examined on a case-by-case basis. The Commission is at present examining different types of code-share, notably agreements between flag carriers relating to the route that links their respective hubs.

The Commission has not received any complaint regarding the code-sharing agreement between Sabena and Virgin Express on the Brussels-Rome route (where Alitalia also operates). However, while the enquiries now being carried out on other routes will help clarify which types of code-sharing agreements are acceptable and which are not, the Honourable Member is welcome to provide to the Commission any evidence in his possession which may show that competition on the Brussels-Rome route has been restricted.

(1) OJ L 40, 13.2.1999. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/73

(2000/C 225 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2205/99 by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Searches carried out at the homes of Belgian frontier workers employed in Luxembourg’s banking sector

Investigators from the financial section of the Brussels CID conducted searches on Saturday, 30 October 1999 at the Belgian residences of employees of the Kredietbank in Luxembourg.

A large number of frontier workers had already received from the special tax inspectorate in Belgium a questionnaire requiring them to list their accounts with the KBL, the amount of income generated by savings and the nature of the transactions carried out via these accounts.

Does the Commission share the opinion of the Luxembourg union of bank staff which denounces as scandalous and defamatory these actions which are an incitement to frontier workers to violate Luxembourg’s rules on banking secrecy with which they are required to comply by Luxembourg law?

Does it believe that making criminals of frontier workers in this way is compatible with the right of workers to freedom of movement and the conditions of employment deriving from the labour law in the country of employment?

What measures would it contemplate, where necessary, to guarantee that the right of workers to freedom of movement is not obstructed by actions on the part of the authorities of the country of residence of frontier workers which merit the description of intolerable psychological pressure?

Answer given by Mr Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

There are no rules on bank secrecy in Community law.

From the point of view of the legal instruments adopted by the European Union in the field of judicial cooperation on criminal matters, there is nothing that would prohibit the Belgian financial police from searching the houses of people working in Luxembourg banks. Again, there are no legal provisions in the acquis on cooperation in criminal matters that would prohibit the Belgian authorities from sending out questionnaires to frontier workers.

As these measures do not discriminate on the basis of the nationality of the people concerned, the Commission does not see them as obstacles to freedom of movement for workers.

(2000/C 225 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2214/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) and Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Oilseed sector and the Millennium Round

It is common knowledge that the outcome of the compromise reached over Agenda 2000 at the European Council meeting in Berlin was unsatisfactory for the oilseed sector. This sector deserved greater attention, to protect it from international and particularly American competition. It is a sector which in Italy alone accounts for some 90 000 firms. The agreement reached at the last meeting of the Council of Ministers for Agriculture over the EU document to be presented at the forthcoming WTO negotiations in Seattle places special emphasis on the multifunctional character of the current European agricultural model. C 225 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

1. Can the Commission explain why Europe has completely sacrificed its oilseed sector?

2. Can it confirm the news that the US is about to launch an emergency plan with a view to granting extraordinary aid to US farmers (to the tune of 9-10 billion dollars, according to the press) to compensate for the drop in world prices of agricultural primary products?

3. Can it say whether, under the ‘Fair Act’ introduced as part of US agricultural policy, oilseed support has exceeded 1992 levels?

4. What, if any, action does it intend take to prevent this strategic sector from being overwhelmed by crises such as those which have stricken the rice-growing sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The provisions adopted in the oilseeds sector in connection with the Agenda 2000 package are to some extent already covered in the Answer given by the Commission to the Honourable Member’s Written Question No E-3652/98 on the proposals concerned (1), in particular where it deals with the alignment of area aid for cereals, oilseeds and set-aside on a single amount, namely € 63 per tonne of cereals, such tonnage being based on historical regional yields. The Council has endorsed this approach, leaving the road clear for the lifting of the ‘Blair House’ constraints on oilseed production, but has decided that it should be implemented in stages, a decision which in essence does not affect the answer given earlier by the Commission.

With regard more specifically to points 1 and 4, the Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the provisions relating to the transitional period for aid for oilseeds, provisions which are set out in Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (2). The Commission will present a report on developments on the oilseed market and may put forward proposals at that stage if there is a serious reduction in the production potential.

On points 2 and 3, the Commission feels that, partly as a result of US farm policy on soya, downward pressure has been brought to bear on world prices which is likely to disrupt markets in agricultural raw materials. When examining whether, as a result of that policy, the support granted by the United States for that crop in 1992 has been exceeded, account should be taken of Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture, otherwise known as the ‘Peace Clause’, which limits the scope for action against farm subsidies. Generally speaking, scrutiny of the conformity of that policy falls entirely within the scope of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

(1) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2217/99 by Massimo Carraro (PSE) and Paolo Costa (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Measures to assist Venice

On 16 April 1999 the European Parliament adopted the joint motion for a resolution (B4-0358, 0359, 0361, 0362 and 0363) on the crisis in Venice, which advocated the inclusion by the Commission, the Italian Government and the Veneto region, of the historic centre of Venice and its lagoon in the new Structural Fund Objective 2 in order to enable state aid to be granted by way of derogation from the rules on competition pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. The Commission was also asked not to consider as ‘state aid’ the tax concessions already granted by the Italian Government to businesses operating in Venice and the lagoon area, since these businesses could not compete on an equal footing with those on the mainland and in other European cities. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/75

To what extent have the Commission and the Italian authorities followed up Parliament’s requests in this regard within their respective areas of responsibility?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), the Commission and the Member State are jointly responsible for defining which areas are eligible under Objective 2 for 2000-2006. The list of eligible areas will depend on the priorities determined by the national authorities on the basis of the criteria in that Regulation. It will be adopted by the Commission, in agreement with the Member State, at the earliest by the end of 1999 or the beginning of 2000. The Commission will ensure that the areas selected are in fact those which are most affected by structural conversion problems.

In the specific case of Italy, the zoning proposal forwarded by the Italian authorities on 1 October 1999 was considered by the Commission to be inadmissible. It does not comply with the requirement that at least 50 % of the eligible population must be represented according to the criteria in Article 4(5) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. The Commission therefore asked the Italian authorities to draw up a new proposal in line with the general Structural Funds regulation as soon as possible.

The Commission is consequently unable to comment on Venice’s particular situation as regards its eligibility under Objective 2.

Regarding the exemption from social security contributions granted to undertakings in Venice and Chioggia in 1995-97, at its meeting on 24 November 1999 the Commission, as part of a review procedure under Article 88(2) (former Article 93(2)) of the EC Treaty, found that the aid granted in the form of relief from social security contributions is compatible with the common market, with the exception of the aid for job creation granted to big firms outside an area eligible for regional aid or aid for safeguarding employment.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2222/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Key features of the work test

What administrative guidance is issued in each Member State to officials responsible for administering the work test, i.e. the test of whether an unemployed person is available and looking for work prior to obtaining benefit? Please describe the key features of these tests for each Member State, particularly the level of earnings compared with previous earnings at which the unemployed can reject an available job offer, the test of whether the individual has looked for work and the test of availability for work. In addition, describe over what period, once a claimant has been accepted for payment of benefit, this work test is reapplied.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The definition and management of social benefit schemes fall within the responsibility and legal competence of the Member States.

The Commission has undertaken, together with the Member States, an analysis of reforms and the functioning of Member States’ labour market policies in the context of the employment strategy. The definition and implementation of administrative procedures relating to work tests and the availability for C 225 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

work among the unemployed should be consistent with the preventive and activation approaches in the employment guidelines (1). The public employment services play a significant role in administering and developing preventive and employability-enhancing policies overall.

The array of regulations and administrative procedures applicable to work tests in each Member State is complex. An overview of some key features of different practices of the work test in selected Member States can be found in the recent report by the Organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD) ‘Making work pay: the role of eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits’ (1999). The Employ- ment Observatory and its regular publications Mutual information system on employment policies (MISEP) and Community system of documentation on employment (SYSDEM (2)), operated by the Commission in collaboration with the Member States, is another useful source of detailed information on key features of current regulations and policy reforms in the Member States in the labour market and related social benefit

(1) OJ C 69, 12.3.1999. (2) http://www.ias-berlin.de/ias/first/1english.htm.

(2000/C 225 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2233/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Capital flows into Switzerland

Detail the gross and net capital inflows into Switzerland, the gross flows, where possible, by source and by type of instrument purchased (bank deposit, bond, etc.), over each of the last ten years. Has there been any noticeable change in flows as a result (a) of the Swiss debate, including the referendum, on the nature of its relationship with the EU and (b) of the Commission proposal for a withholding tax (in the savings directive)?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat the available statistics (International monetary fund (IMF) statistics, financial accounts), which show that there has been an increasing net outflow of capital from Switzerland over the period 1989 to 1998. This corresponds over the years broadly to an excess of domestic savings over domestic investments that was channelled abroad. Among the various types of flows, direct investments show a marked trend of increasing net outflows, whereas portfolio investments and short-term flows (‘Other flows in the statistics’) exhibit large fluctuations around an only modestly increasing trend. The major peaks for portfolio investments are grouped in the two periods of 1993-1994 and 1996-1997, whereas short-term net outflows peaked in, respectively, 1990 and 1998. The movements observed, as well as the underlying gross flows, coincide rather well with periods of pronounced volatility on financial markets (for instance, the currency crises in Europe and the global bond crisis during 1992-1994; the increasing international presence of Swiss banks starting from 1995; the global financial crises of 1997-1998; and in addition market movements due to the advent of economic and monetary union). Possible results from the events mentioned by the Honourable Member seem apparent only in the case of direct investment.

Inward direct investments show a marked decline in 1992-1993, but have thereafter regained earlier levels. In contrast, outward direct investments started a period of pronounced increases after 1992, from having been relatively stable in the period before. These developments could perhaps to a certain extent be attributed to a change in confidence in the Swiss economy following the referendum. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/77

Apart from the above, the year-to-year development of capital flows does not indicate any marked effects either from the referendum or from the current Community proposal for a proposal for a Council directive to ensure a minimum of effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments within the Community (1). The developments mentioned earlier, as well as more persistent trends, such as the globalisation of financial markets, all contributed to influence the capital flows and appear to dominate their variation. Still, a possible influence from Community efforts to harmonise capital income taxation could materialise eventually, once a new directive concerning capital income taxation is adopted and the public and the market can learn the precise content of the new legislation, implementation date and implications.

(1) OJ C 212, 8.7.1998.

(2000/C 225 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Replacement rates

What are the typical replacement rates (benefit payments on unemployment as a percentage of earnings) for each of the Member States and, for comparison, the United States and Japan?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The definition and management of social benefit schemes including their relative level of assistance, the replacement rates fall within the responsibility and legal competence of the Member States.

Policy issues related to tax and benefit systems, and their impact on the labour market, have been given an increasing weight in the employment guidelines (1) and the broad economic policy guidelines in recent years.

Some analysis and data on replacement rates for the Community, the United States and Japan have been published in ‘The EU Economy 1999 Review’, Part II, Chapter 2 (2), and further analysis based on data from the European Community household panel (ECHP) will be published in the forthcoming ‘Social Protection in Europe’ report 1999. These documents deal with some of the conceptual issues involved in defining and measuring replacement rates and provide some examples of the results obtained.

(1) OJ C 69, 12.3.1999. (2) European Economy series No 69.

(2000/C 225 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2247/99 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: The Structural Funds and regional assistance

1. Will the Commission confirm that any award to a Member State of structural funding, for example under Objective 1 or Objective 2, is subject to the rule of additionality, that is that the Member State must ensure that expenditure of the funds in question by a local or regional level of government does not replace expenditure from existing budgets but is additional to them? Does this require a dedication of matching funds within locally secured budgets to match expenditure facilitated through the Structural Funds? C 225 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

2. Does the Commission take steps to ensure that the rule of additionality (in whatever is its proper and relevant sense) is observed by Member States. If so, what is the mechanism by which the Commission does this? If not, why not?

3. If a local or regional authority, or an elected representative in such an authority, or an MEP, has reasonable grounds for suspicion that funds are being misappropriated in the sense of being allocated without due regard to additionality, what does the Commission consider to be the appropriate avenue of complaint?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

1. It is correct that Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993, amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88, as regards coordination of the activities of the different structural funds between themselves and with the operations of the European investment bank and the other existing financial instruments (1) provides that spending on the structural funds may not replace structural or comparable expenditure undertaken by the Member State. However, it also provides that additionality is established at the level of the whole of the territory eligible under an objective, rather than at the local or regional level. On condition therefore that the Member State maintains its overall public structural or comparable expenditure at least at the same level as in the previous programming period, additionality is respected. Similar provisions will apply during the next programming period for objective 1 while additionality for objectives 2 and 3 together will be assessed on the basis of national spending on active labour market policy (Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the structural funds (2)). The level of matching funds at the local level is a separate issue from additionality and depends on the structure of the programme or measure in question.

2. The Community support framework or single programming document governing expenditure under the structural funds is not adopted unless it contains provisions to ensure compliance ex ante with the principle of additionality. Subsequently, during the course of the programming period, the Member State provides the Commission with the financial information required to allow the verification of additionality on an ongoing basis. The regulations do not provide for any specific penalties in regard to non-compliance with the ongoing verification of additionality.

3. As it is not possible to draw any conclusion at the local or regional level regarding compliance with the principle of additionality, the question of reporting non-compliance at that level does not arise.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. (2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2250/99

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Flight delays

It is becoming alarmingly and even scandalously common for flight departures from airports all over the European Union to be delayed.

Given that all these delays are causing considerable economic prejudice and personal inconvenience to travellers and their families, their business associates, etc., will the Commission state what the real causes are, and, if appropriate, what measures it intends to adopt to ensure that flight schedules are adhered to? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/79

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

The Commission agrees that the situation of air traffic delays and airspace congestion has reached levels which are no longer acceptable and requires urgent and drastic action.

This is why the Commission adopted, on 1st December 1999, a communication (1) on the creation of the European single sky which analyses the causes for that situation and recommends a number of actions to be undertaken both at Member States and at Community level. The questions of the Honourable Member are answered in this document.

In addition, the Commission envisages to examine more in depth the impact of delays on the travelling public on the occasion of a wide consultation to be undertaken soon on the protection of air passengers.

(1) COM(1999) 614 final.

(2000/C 225 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2252/99

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Environmental deterioration in Arce (Piélagos-Cantabria, Spain)

The lack of any controls on the operations carried out at the Laherran and Hormisa quarries in Arce (Cantabria) is causing the local population grave concern. Activity at both quarries, currently consisting of sand and cement extraction, stone crushing, an agglomerate plant and a concrete plant has increased considerably. All of this means that there has been an increase in dust, noise and vibration from explosions, and, on top of this, the constant flow of heavy vehicles through the village, at great risk to the local population, given the absence of any adequate traffic infrastructure.

The situation has lead to over a hundred protests being made to the local authorities and the government of the autonomous region, but local people’s requests to the appropriate authorities for information about the local authority licences of the quarries have failed to produce a solution to the problem.

Given that there is a scheme to extend the installations at one of the quarries, and a plan to build a dry mortar factory, I would ask:

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Does the Commission not believe that Community environmental legislation is being violated, since the work being done by these companies comes under the heading of irritating, unhealthy, harmful and dangerous industrial activity taking place a few metres from private housing?

3. Will the Commission approach the relevant authorities with a view to ensuring that the following directives are complied with:

(a) 85/337 /EEC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment;

(b) 96/61/ EEC (2) on integrated pollution prevention and control; C 225 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(d) 87/216 /EEC (4) on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities?

4. Will the Commission urge the competent authorities to carry out an urgent investigation of the licences of the existing quarries, and to draw up a technical study of each of the companies located in Arce, with a view to implementing a specific plan for dealing with these companies?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26. (3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (4) OJ L 85, 28.3.1987, p. 36.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The Commission was not aware of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers.

There are no specific Community rules governing unhealthy, uncomfortable or dangerous establishments. Only Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control indirectly covers certain establishments of this type. This Directive should have been transposed into national law by 1 November 1999 at the latest. Spain has not yet notified the Commission of any measures transposing it into Spanish law. Consequently, the Commission will shortly initiate an infringement procedure against Spain under Article 226 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 169).

The Commission does not know whether the quarries in question have been made subject to an environmental 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 the projects listed in Annex I to the Directive. It also applies to the projects listed in Annex II, where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. The extractive industry is listed in Annex II. Consequently, a project of this kind should be made subject to an assessment, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive, where the Member State considers that its characteristics so require. The area in question has not been identified by the Spanish authorities as a Site of Community Importance (SIC) for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. The village of Arce is situated at a distance of 1 to 2 kilometres from a SIC proposed by Spain, on the banks of the river Pas.

The Spanish authorities are responsible for ensuring that the operations at the quarries do not infringe the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of natural fauna and flora. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission cannot presume that the provisions of the said Directive have been infringed.

With regard to the application of Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities (1), known as the Seveso Directive, amended by Directive 87/216/ EEC, it should be noted that this Directive was replaced on 3 February 1999 by Directive 96/82/EC (2), known as Seveso II. The latter excludes from its field of application ‘the activities of the extractive industries concerned with exploration for, and the exploitation of, minerals in mines and quarries or by means of boreholes’.

(1) OJ L 230, 5.8.1982. (2) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/81

(2000/C 225 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2254/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Geographical origin of quality products

1. Why does the Commission not uphold the principle that, in the interests of consumer protection, the geographical origin of quality products such as honey should be guaranteed?

2. Why can a certificate of specific character not be awarded to pure virgin honey without delays or hold-ups, since a quality mark of this kind would be highly appreciated by consumers?

3. In order to ensure food safety and prevent adulteration and fraud, why does the Commission not propose that parameters and procedures for analysis and control be laid down based on the latest scientific findings?

4. Would it not be appropriate to provide a clear definition of quality standards for honey based on the origins of the product and the production method used?

5. Why can provision not be made, as it has in the case of many other rules, for the Member States to be allowed to introduce more stringent quality rules for their own products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

1. Since 1992 the designations of products with specific features from a strictly defined geographical area may be protected under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1). A number of applications from Member States resulted in the registration of designations of origin for honey. Italy has not yet submitted such an application for registration under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.

2. As regards quality policy, the Council also adopted Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs. The Italian authorities submitted an application for a certificate under that Regulation for the designation ‘Miele vergine integrale’ which is now being discussed with the Commission. The latest additional information was received in October 1999.

3. and 4. Directive 74/409/EEC on honey (2), which is now being revised (3), defines honey and lays down certain criteria for its composition which all honey must meet if it is to be marketed under that name. Other criteria may be laid down as progress is made in methods of analysis. To that end, as the Commission pointed out in its communication of 24 June 1994 to the Council and the European Parliament on European apiculture, it is encouraging the development of harmonised methods of analysis to check compliance with the quality specifications for different types of honey, based on their botanical or geographical origin, in order to prevent and combat fraud. Work carried out by the Ispra research centre for that purpose has taken account of the most recent scientific methods of analysis. The results of this study were recently sent to the Commission, which will evaluate them. In any event, the Commission would point out that it is up to the inspection authorities in each Member State to ensure that products comply with Community legislation.

The Directive referred to above and the revisions proposed will enable honey producers to add to the description for sale details of the flowers or plants from which the honey was obtained and its regional, territorial or local origin. Designations of honey with a specific character may also be protected under Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 2081/92 or 2082/92. C 225 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

5. As in the case of many rules concerning foodstuffs, the Commission considers that, once the Community legislator has acted to harmonise the technical rules on composition, any national action would be likely to create obstacles to trade within the Community. More restrictive national rules may, however, be permitted when they are justified by considerations of public health.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992. (2) OJ L 221, 12.8.1974. (3) COM(95) 722 final.

(2000/C 225 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2273/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Intercountry adoptions

The stir which has recently been caused by the activities of members of the ‘Concerned Christians’ cult has highlighted the problem of intercountry adoptions and in particular the adoption of children from countries of Eastern Europe. The 25 members of the cult include 6 adopted children with special needs from Romania. These children need a secure environment instead of travelling between Greece and Israel with a group of adults whose intentions are unknown but who, according to press reports. Are planning to commit suicide with the advent of the year 2000, possibly endangering the lives of the children.

The European Parliament has expressed the view that uncontrolled intercountry adoptions, together with sexual exploitation are a major present-day problem, particularly for children from Eastern European countries. In its resolution on improving the law and cooperation between the Member States on the adoption of minors of 12 December 1996 (1) it called on the Commission, the Council and the Member States to take legal and other measures to protect children involved in intercountry adoptions.

In view of the growing number of cases of abuse, exploitation and infringements of the rights of children, what urgent measures will the Commission take to put in place a rigorous institutional framework of rules governing intercountry adoptions?

(1) OJ C 20, 20.1.1997, p. 176.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to the ill-treatment and abandon of children and to the infringements of children’s rights. The Honourable Member specifically asks the Commission what emergency measures it intends to take in order to put in place a rigorous institutional framework of rules governing intercountry adoptions.

The Commission is of the opinion that the institutional framework for intercountry adoptions already exists. The effective implementation of all the instruments in question would help prevent infringements of children’s rights.

With regard to legislation, the Commission would refer to the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. All the Member States are also members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. On the basis of information supplied by the Conference Secretariat the 1993 Convention has been ratified by 27 members of the Conference, only 7 of which are Member States of the European Union. To date, Greece has not signed the Convention. Romania and Israel, countries referred to by the Honourable Member, have ratified the Convention. In its resolution of 12 December 1996 on improving the law and cooperation between the Member States on the adoption of minors Parliament referred to the importance of this Convention and called on the Member States to ratify it. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/83

With regard to non-legislative measures, the Commission would refer to the Daphne initiative it launched in 1997; this has now been replaced by the Community action programme Daphne (2000-2004) operational since 1 January 2000. The aim of the programme is to ensure a high level of protection of physical and mental health by protecting children, young people and women against violence (including violence in the form of sexual exploitation and abuse) by preventing violence and by providing support for the victims of violence in order to prevent future exposure to violence. It should be noted that the Community action programme is open to the associated countries of central Europe, including Romania, a country referred to by the Honourable Member.

(2000/C 225 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2275/99

by Vittorio Sgarbi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: European rules on amusement arcades

At present, there are considerable disparities between the various Member States with regard to national rules governing games of chance. In some countries such as Italy there is a total ban on the issuing of licences with the result that demand far outstrips the very limited supply. All of Italy’s neighbours, however, including Slovenia which is close to becoming a member of the Union, have more liberal laws on games of chance and have numerous casinos and amusement arcades. Consequently there are many Italians who travel abroad in order to frequent these places.

These activities produce revenue of thousands of billions of lire for the local authorities or states where the games of chance take place, revenue which is lost to the gamblers’ regions of origin because of the absence of adequate facilities. Much of this revenue comes from the pockets of Italians who are obliged to travel abroad to frequent amusement arcades. At European level, efforts have always been made to standardise Member States’ rules liable to generate appreciable differences in the socio-economic field, while account should also be taken of the huge turnover produced by gaming houses.

Can the Commission answer the following:

is it intending to draw up a Community directive that will provide equal opportunities for business- men, interested bodies and clients with regard to the opening, operation and frequenting of amusement arcades?

if not, does it think it would be appropriate to take steps to remove the legal disparities and eliminate any possible competition based on clear differences in laws, which severely penalise Italy vis-à-vis neighbouring countries?

furthermore, does it think it appropriate to issue a Community directive on the subject designed to standardise the laws in force in the various Member States as soon as possible?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The Commission would like to draw the honourable Member’s attention to the negative aspects of games of chance, which include the active encouragement for players to spend money and a potential for damaging personal and social consequences. For this reason, all Member States regulate games of chance with the intention of preventing the stimulation of demand in this sector, fighting crime and fraud, and ensuring that games of chance serve a charitable, sporting or cultural purpose, rather than personal or commercial profit. In view of the moral, religious and cultural concerns surrounding these activities, the Member States therefore tend to impose a limit on their number. C 225 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Although the limitations on games of chance prevent certain economic operators from gaining access to this field of activity, their underlying principles were found by the Court of Justice to be compatible with the principle of the freedom to provide services set out in Article 49 (formerly Article 59) of the EC Treaty (see the judgment of 21 September 1999 in case C-124/97). The Court found that the considerations of public interest mentioned above were sufficient justification for leaving the Member States to decide which restrictive measures were necessary to provide protection on their territory.

It is the Commission’s view that the various systems of regulation and national control exercised in the different Member States are all based on public interest grounds and follow the same principles, which are compatible with the Community principle of the freedom to provide services. In this context and in the absence of substantial differences between the laws of the various Member States, the Commission has no intention of drafting any secondary legislation on games of chance.

(2000/C 225 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2278/99 by Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 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?

(1) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member’s concerns about the difficult market situation, which is characterised by very low prices and serious over-capacity caused by Korea.

So far as alleged subsidisation of Korean shipbuilding is concerned, at this stage it is not possible to quantify the possible forms of public support being used to assist Korean yards. More information is required. The Commission will continue its investigations and present its findings to the Council.

As regards the Community’s aid regime, Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding, provides for a range of various aids to shipbuilding up until 2003. The only aids that are due to be abolished at the end of 2000 are contract-related operating aids. There are no plans at this stage to prolong such aids.

In accordance with Article 12 of the Regulation, the Commission is obliged to keep 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 recent report to the Council (1) was the first such report. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/85

At its meeting on 9 November 1999, the Industry Council noted with concern the report’s findings and called for a series of actions to address the situation. It wanted the Commission to pursue its efforts to establish a level playing field for the sector by immediately engaging Korea in constructive consultations with a view to halting the unfair competition. Further it called upon industry, Member States and the Commission to seek as much detailed evidence as possible of the alleged anti-competitive behaviour, in order to take appropriate action under the World trade organization (WTO). It wanted Member States to urge the International monetary fund (IMF) and World Bank to continue to investigate whether the conditions and assumptions for IMF rescue packages are fully respected. Finally Member States and the Commission were to pursue their efforts to establish a level playing field for the sector in the appropriate international fora, including the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD), in order to enforce fair competition rules. The Council also welcomed the Commission’s determination to continue to meet its obligations under Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 and to report on developments as soon as necessary.

(1) COM(1999) 474 final.

(2000/C 225 E/085) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2281/99

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Enlargement strategy and nuclear safety

The European Commission has changed its negotiating strategy and now seeks to enable accession negotiations with all applicant states in order to avoid a division into two groups.

Is a deadline for decommissioning reactors Nos 1 and 4 at the Kozloduy nuclear power plant a precondition for opening negotiations with Bulgaria?

What line is being taken on Slovakia, which, to comply with Austria’s requirements, could only accede to the EU if it had closed down its Bohunice nuclear power plant by the year 2006?

What timetable does it propose for opening negotiations with the countries of the second group in relation to this problem?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1999)

The Community attaches particular attention to nuclear safety in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The European Council in Cologne stressed the importance of nuclear safety in the context of enlargement and called on the Commission to examine this issue thoroughly in its next regular reports on the progress of candidate countries towards accession. Nuclear safety will be subject to continued scrutiny and supportive action by the Commission in the pre-accession period.

As for reactors in candidate countries that are not upgradeable to international safety standards at a reasonable cost (Ignalina in Lithuania, Bohunice V1 in Slovakia and units 1-4 of the Kozloduy in Bulgaria), the Commission, in line with the positions taken by the Council and the Parliament, has been seeking their earliest practicable closure through commitment of the concerned countries on realistic closure timetables, consistent where applicable with assumed international obligations. The Commission has also declared its willingness to assist these countries in implementing such timetables both technically and financially.

Following discussions with the Commission, Lithuania and Slovakia recently took decisions for closure of older reactors, and have been revising their energy strategies accordingly. In the case of Slovakia, the two Bohunice V1 reactors will be closed by 2006 and 2008, respectively. C 225 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

As regards Bulgaria, in line with the Commission’s October 1999 composite paper on the progress of candidate countries towards accession, an understanding was reached between the Bulgarian Government and the Commission, on 29th November 1999, stating that the Bulgarian Government was committed to definitively close units 1-4 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant at the earliest possible dates. In this context, and on the basis of the commitment of the Commission for financial support, the Bulgarian Government commits itself to definitively close down units 1 and 2 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant before the year 2003.

On the occasion of the updating of the energy strategy which will be completed in 2002, Bulgaria will decide, in agreement with the Commission and taking account of the Nuclear safety account agreement and other relevant factors, on the definitive closure dates for units 3 and 4, which will be before the presently envisaged closure dates of 2008 and 2010, respectively. The Commission’s understanding is that the definitive closure of these units will take place in 2006 at the latest.

(2000/C 225 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2284/99

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Use of material classified as waste in Finland

The Commission’s proposed directive on the incineration of waste will give rise to serious problems in Finland. The proposed directive is drawn up with countries in mind in which waste management is based on mass incineration units. However, in complying with the directive Finland would be forced into a situation which would be in conflict with environmental efficiency.

According to industry’s own estimates there are at least 200 heating and power generation plants and industrial furnaces in Finland in which it is possible to safely co-incinerate harmless materials classified as waste. In addition to wood these include paper which is unsuitable for recycling for one reason or another, cardboard, textiles and harmless sludge from industrial processes. In our industries the materials classified as waste which are suitable for incineration are sorted at the place of origin in just the same way, mutatis mutandis, as in the household and commercial sectors. In this way it is ensured that no more harmful emissions arise from incineration than from ordinary fuels. The incineration plants are also efficiently supervised.

The application of such limit values to plants which incinerate harmless materials classified as waste as an additional fuel is very problematic, if only because the continuous measurement of emissions is expensive and calls for high investments in measuring equipment. In Finland the long transport distances favour the use of small plants. Costs could well rise to such an extent that the use of waste as an additional fuel will cease to be profitable.

Co-incineration can reduce the quantity of waste needing to be transported to landfill sites. The use of the energy content of materials sorted at source which are classified as waste, but which emit harmless combustion gases when burnt, contributes greatly to sustainable development.

1. What is the Commission doing to ensure that the drafting of the directive takes into account the efficient sorting of waste at source in Finland and the use of energy this makes possible?

2. Is it possible that the authorities supervising incineration could be given wider powers to be flexible in individual cases, where this is justified in the light of the type of waste and the technical level of the installation? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/87

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 1999)

The Commission proposal on the incineration of waste (1) was adopted on 7 October 1998. The Parliament gave its first reading on 14 April 1999. The Council adopted the common position on 25 November 1999.

When preparing the directive the Commission carried out intensive discussions with experts from all Member States as well as all others concerned. These discussions as well as the negotiations in the Council have led to a common position which takes into account the specific requirements of the Nordic Member States.

The common position seeks to establish the same requirements for the co-incineration of waste as for the incineration of waste. For combustion plants co-incinerating waste, the emission limit values which apply are generally more stringent than those for plants not using waste. However, the problem is not always related to compliance with tighter emission limit values, but the costs for the measurement requirements of the directive. In order to deal with this the future directive provides for the possibility of obtaining an authorisation to reduce the frequency of the measurements, which should reduce the costs for operators.

Article 11 (6) provides for the possibility to apply periodic measurements instead of continuous measurements for hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen fluoride and sulphur dioxide. In addition, Article 11 (7), which was initiated by the Finnish delegation in the Council, allows the frequency of periodic measurements of heavy metals and dioxin to be reduced under certain criteria.

The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the future directive already takes care of the specific requirements of Finnish waste management systems. Moreover the Commission would consider all new developments which could arise in the second reading in this respect.

(1) OJ C 372, 2.12.1998 as modified by COM(1999) 330 final.

(2000/C 225 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/99 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Right to freedom of movement and Danish tax rules

When a Danish national moves to Spain and thus establishes his place of residence and centre of interests in that country, that person’s pension is taxed according to Spanish rules but, should the same Danish national instead choose to set up residence in Portugal, his pension is taxed according to Danish tax rules. In view of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement laid down in the Treaty, will the Commission explain how a Danish national’s lack of opportunity to enjoy freedom of movement in relation to the taxation of pensions is in accordance with the Treaty’s fundamental and overriding principle of freedom of movement?

Although no Community legislation has been adopted on the right to tax income from pensions at EU level, is there not a risk in practice, as for instance in the above example, that a fundamental EU rule on freedom of movement is being contravened by national tax rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

It is true that in the absence of harmonisation of personal income taxation European citizens are confronted with different tax rules when they take up residence in another Member State. This implies a different level of taxation which may in some cases influence the decision to envisage such transfer of residence. C 225 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

By virtue of mostly bilateral conventions, Member States have arranged the distribution of taxing rights for situations which are not purely domestic. These conventions distribute the taxing rights amongst the States concerned according to the results of the bilateral negotiations. A generally followed pattern is the model for a bilateral convention recommended by the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD). Article 18 of that model has been retained as article 18 of the convention between Denmark and Spain of 3 July 1972. It provides, subject to different rules for public remunerations and pensions, that pensions and other similar remuneration paid to a resident of a contracting state in consideration of past employment shall be taxable only in that Member State.

The same article was included in the convention between Denmark and Portugal of 3 March 1972. However, this convention has been terminated with effect from 1 January 1995 by Denmark so that Denmark is no longer bound to leave the exclusive right to tax Danish pensions of emigrants to Portugal.

Notwithstanding the absence of an applicable tax convention, the two Member States are bound by the EC Treaty principle of free movement within the Community to avoid and eliminate double taxation, at least by imputing a tax paid in the other Member State on their own charge to tax. Cases have come to the knowledge of the Commission in which Portugal has indeed refrained from applying its tax rules to Danish pensions already taxed in Denmark.

(2000/C 225 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2292/99

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Extension of licences to operate motorways in Italy

The Italian government is extending the licences granted to all motorway operating companies. Under the so-called Ciampi-Costa directive (1), licences to operate motorways may be extended on an exceptional basis in order to settle on-going disputes (failure to bring tariffs into line, recognition of work carried out for the 1990 World Cup and the Columbus celebrations in 1992 and any other disputes on which an opinion will have to be requested from the State’s legal counsel). In this connection, the agreements, i.e. the acts which govern relations between the State and the licence holders, will need to be revised before 31 December 1999. Not taking account of the agreement with Autostrade SpA, the government has so far signed seven extension agreements out of the 19 remaining agreements (2). The agreements are currently being examined by the Court of Auditors. The outline of the standard agreement between ANAS (state- owned national road company) and the companies to which licences are awarded, in which disputes, tariffs, financial plans, investments and contractual clauses are calculated and quantified, has not even been subject to examination by the Court of Auditors! In order to justify the extension of the 19 licences, there are plans to invest 11 418 billion lire in new motorway infrastructure projects, some of which have not even been authorised, and are thus in conflict with Italian law (3), thereby making the overall transport plan, which is in the process of being drawn up, irrelevant. Furthermore, as a result of the extensions, many of the licences will exceed the 30-year limit laid down by the law (4). Moreover, the new law on civil protection requires licence holders to introduce safety measures for motorway tunnels. This will mean that, in the near future, agreements on licences currently being entered into will need to be reviewed (5).

1. Does the Commission not consider that the renewal of the licences breaches the provisions of Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/37/EEC and 89/440/EEC in that no European public invitation to tender was issued for the granting of the licences (6)?

2. Does the Commission not consider that the new infrastructure projects are aimed at justifying the automatic extension of the licences, and as a result, the motorway monopolies?

3. Does the Commission not consider that, before granting any extensions, it is first necessary to reform the Italian motorway operating licence sector in order to implement fully the European legislation in the area of the public procurement (7)? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/89

4. How can the Commission accept these extensions, which make it futile to draw up an Overall Transport Plan to implement Community guidelines on shifting the modal balance and reducing motorised traffic?

(1) Directive issued by the Ministry of Public Works, in agreement with the Ministry for the Treasury, Budget and Economic Planning, of 20.10.1998, Protocol No 011790/Treasury Ministry. (2) The agreements relate to the following routes: Venice-Padua, Autostrada dei Fiori, RAV, Ativa, Turin-Milan, Serravalle and Brennero SpA. The extensions cover periods of up to 12 years. (3) The law in force does not allow the licence holders or ANAS to build new sections of motorway unless they are specifically authorised to do so by law. Law No 376 of 13.8.1975 is in fact still in force and Article 18a thereof requires the building of new motorways, motorway sections and tunnelling to be suspended pending a comprehensive reform of the motorway operating licence system. No such reform has taken place. (4) This time limit appears in all the laws dating from 1955 to the present day, and was confirmed by the recent law on public procurement (Law 109/94, coordinated with Law 415/98). This absolute time limit is of course also valid for licences that have been extended. (5) Law No 226 of 13.7.1999, Article 8a(4), states that the work is to be carried out by the operating companies and that specific funds shall be set aside in the financial plans, which shall be brought into line within six months. (6) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, OJ L 199, 9.8.1993 and OJ L 268, 15.9.1989. Under Directive 89/440/EEC, public works contracts are awarded in the ordinary way in accordance with the restricted invitation to tender procedure, while Directive 93/37/EEC provides for a European invitation to tender for the award of construction and operation contracts. (7) his sector has been awaiting reform since 1975, when the Odorisio Commission set up by the Public Works Ministry uncovered the increasing level of indebtedness of the companies operating in the sector and the building of new motorway sections was suspended (Law No 376 of 13.8.1975). The suspension law also provided for the introduction of a law reforming the entire system by 1980, but no such law has been adopted.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission has started two new procedures concerning the extension of motorway licences in Italy. The Italian authorities have been contacted to clarify various aspects of the matter. These cases will be discussed at a forthcoming meeting with the authorities in Rome.

Furthermore, the Commission has asked all the Member States about existing circumstances regarding motorway licences, in order to get an overall view of this problem that has significant social and economic implications. Should infringements of Community law be detected, the Commission will not hesitate to pursue the matter under the procedure provided for under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission is fully committed to the promotion of ‘sustainable mobility’ within the Community, by encouraging the development of transport systems that are efficient and environment-friendly, as well as being safe and socially acceptable. The action programme ‘Sustainable mobility: perspectives for the future’ indicates the initiatives that the Commission plans to take along these lines. However, responsibility for the development of national framework programmes for transport infrastructure lies with the Member States. It is the job of the Commission to ensure compliance with the relevant Community legislation.

(2000/C 225 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2293/99

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Extension of the licence granted to the Italian company Autostrade SpA

The Italian government has approved by decree the extension of the licence granted to Autostrade SpA from 2018 to 2038 (1), despite the negative opinions of the Court of Auditors and the Competition and Market Regulatory Authority (2) which led the Court to register the relevant ministerial decrees subject to reservations, a procedure which requires the Italian Parliament to give its opinion. No such opinion has been issued (3). The reasons behind the negative opinions are the inapplicability of the generalised 20-year C 225 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

extension given the IRI company specifically in the motorway operating licence sector, the imbalance in the financial plan between the duration of the licence, investments, contributions and tariffs, the failure to apply Community and national law on public procurement, particularly since the renewal of the licences should have taken place under a procedure open to public scrutiny. Following a letter of 30 July 1998 from the European Commission to the Italian government requiring the operational risk to be taken on by the entity to which the licence is granted, a committee of external technical experts was brought in and made responsible for managing the award of motorway operating licences. This measure is, however, in breach of Italian law (4), which does not allow the separation in the licence between construction and operation, and fails to ensure that the Commission’s requirements are met since the principle of the risk associated with the operation of the infrastructure is not provided for. Furthermore, an attempt has been made to justify the extension of the licence by pointing to the need to cover the unpaid costs of infrastructure projects and other disputes; in reality, the licence provides for new investment of roughly 8 400 billion lire to upgrade the whole of the Florence-Bologna motorway when in fact, following the government agreements of July 1996, approval has only been granted for the Aglio-Canova crossing section and the upgrading of the Florence North-Florence South stretch of motorway. This also constitutes a breach of the relevant national law (5). In addition, no account is being taken of the fact that an Overall Transport Plan is in the process of being drawn up.

1. Does the Commission not consider that the renewal of the licence breaches the provisions of Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/37/EEC and 89/440/EEC in that no European public invitation to tender was issued for the granting of the licences (6)?

2. Does it not consider that the setting up of a committee of technical experts fails to meet the requirement to apply the principle of risk associated with the operation of infrastructure?

3. How can the Commission accept these extensions, which make it futile to draw up an Overall Transport Plan to implement Community guidelines on shifting the modal balance and reducing motorised traffic?

(1) On the basis of the ANAS-Autostrade agreement of 4.8.1997 and additional acts of 11.2.1999 and July 1999. (2) Deliberations of the Court of Auditors Nos 136 of 27.10.1997 and 20/E/98 of 17.2.1998, and the opinion of the Competition Authority issued on 22.5.1998. (3) It should be noted that any changes to the time limits to which the licences are subject had previously always been made by legislative means. (4) Law No 463 of 21.5.1955 and legislative decree No 547 of 17.4.1948. (5) The law in force does not allow the licence holders or ANAS to build new sections of motorway unless they are specifically authorised to do so by law. Law No 376 of 13.8.1975 is in fact still in force and Article 18a thereof requires the building of new motorways, motorway sections and tunnelling to be suspended pending a comprehensive reform of the motorway operating licence system. No such reform has taken place. (6) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, OJ L 199, 9.8.1993 and OJ L 268, 15.9.1989. Under Directive 89/440/EEC, public works contracts are awarded in the ordinary way in accordance with the restricted invitation to tender procedure, while Directive 93/37/EEC provides for a European invitation to tender for the award of construction and operation contracts.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The procedure concerning the extension of the Autostrade SpA licence is still pending, although a positive solution seems to be likely. The fact is that the Italian authorities have shown complete readiness to cooperate with the Commission and have pledged to adopt the requisite measures in compliance with Community law.

The forecast by the independent committee responsible for the procedures for the award of public works contracts in connection with the licence is not likely to alter the element of risk involved in the management of the construction, since it does not affect the financial plan of the licence and is merely an additional guarantee for opening up markets to competition.

In view of the consequences that this question may have, the Commission will continue to follow the matter and the case will not be filed until it is convinced that the principles of transparency, non- discrimination and equality of treatment have been observed throughout the process. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/91

The Commission is fully committed to promoting ‘sustainable mobility’ within the Community, by encouraging the development of transport systems that are efficient and environment-friendly, as well as being safe and socially acceptable.

The action programme entitled ‘Sustainable mobility: perspectives for the future’ indicates the initiatives that the Commission plans to take along these lines.

However, responsibility for the development of national framework programmes for transport infrastructure lies with the Member States. It is the job of the Commission to ensure compliance with the relevant Community legislation.

(2000/C 225 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2297/99 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Gas production in the Waddenzee

The Dutch government has designated the Waddenzee nature conservation area a ‘special area of conservation’ (protected area) pursuant to the habitats directive, 92/43/EEC (1).

1. Is the Commission aware that the Dutch government intends to permit gas production in the Waddenzee subject to certain conditions?

2. Is the Commission aware of the opinion of experts (including the Committee for the Environmental Impact Assessment in 1996) that there is a distinct possibility of gas production having a major impact on the unique conservation area of the Waddenzee? Does the Commission share the experts’ opinion?

3. Does the Commission agree that gas production may be at variance with the obligation under the habitats directive to protect this nature conservation area? Does the Commission feel that in this instance there are compelling reasons of public interest which might justify gas production in the Waddenzee pursuant to the habitats directive? Is the Commission aware of alternatives to gas exploration in the Waddenzee?

4. Does the Commission believe that a fresh inquiry, as suggested de facto by the Dutch government on 5 November, into the question of whether the proposed gas production involves irreparable damage is strictly necessary given the number of inquiries that have already been conducted? What is the Commis- sion’s view of an inquiry into irreversible damage in the light of Article 6(3) of the habitats directive which refers to ‘significant damage?’

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

1. The Commission is aware from newspaper articles and other media that the Dutch government has decided that the extraction of natural gas in the Waddensea can be permitted under certain conditions. However, according to the information available to the Commission so far, this decision has to be discussed in the Dutch parliament before it can be carried out.

2. The Commission has no information about the subject, so it is not able to give its opinion about the consequences of such extraction for the natural importance of the Waddensea at the moment.

3. The Waddensea is an area that has to be protected as a special protection area in the sense of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (1) and as a special area of conservation in the sense of Council Directive 92/43/EC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. As far as the Commission can judge on the basis of the limited information that it has at its disposal, an assessment in the sense of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC should be made, if C 225 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

such an assessment has not yet taken place. The long term effects should be included in this assessment. In particular the precautionary principle has to be taken into account. If the assessment demonstrates that the extraction will have negative implications, Article 6(4) of the Directive applies. This implies that the Dutch authorities have to demonstrate that there are no alternative solutions for the extraction and that a reason exists based on the overriding public interest in carrying out the extraction. If such negative implications can be demonstrated, compensatory measures in the sense of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC should be taken before the extraction takes place, in order to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.

4. The Honourable Member is referred to point 3 above. To this can be added that the word ‘significant effect’ in Article 6(3) has a broader meaning than only ‘irreversible effect’.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2000/C 225 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2301/99 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Implementation of the nitrates directive (No 91/676/EEC)

1. In reply to my question P-1725/99 (1) of 15 September 1999 the Commission said that it was possible to distinguish between nitrates derived from industrial sources and from other sources. Does the Commission intend to recommend that the requisite monitoring should be carried out for this purpose?

2. The Commission also says in its reply that it is possible by means of isotope analysis to distinguish between organic N of human or animal origin on the one hand and chemical N from artificial fertiliser or factories on the other. Does the Commission consider that organic N of human origin can affect the readings, and hence also the implementation of the nitrates directive (no 91/676/EEC) (2)? Does the Commission believe that leaky sewers in the Netherlands could have a distinct impact on nitrate readings?

(1) See page 14. (2) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

The question posed is basically whether there are other relevant sources of nitrates pollution of waters by nitrates than those from agriculture, in particular waste water.

It is significant, both as regards the political decision and the practical implementation, that the European legislator addressed, within the same year of 1991, nitrates pollution of waters (groundwaters and surface waters, including marine waters) from agricultural sources by Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1), and nitrates and other pollution of waters from waste water sources by Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (2).

Wherever such nitrates pollution (elevated concentrations of nitrates in surface waters or groundwaters; eutrophication of surface waters including marine waters) is observed, the necessary measures have to be implemented, targeted on agricultural and waste water sources. A 1999 judgement by the European court (3) confirms in this context that mandatory measures (action programmes) under the nitrates directive have to be established and implemented even if in a particular situation agriculture is not the main source of pollution.

The choice of the necessary monitoring is the responsibility of Member States. The draft guidelines on monitoring currently discussed with Member States will list elements of monitoring, including various methods of analysis and assessment, but do not give recommendations in individual situations. Amongst 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/93

the methods of analysis and assessment, isotope analysis is one, based on the fact that the ratio between two nitrogen isotopes, N14 and N15, is different for organic fertilisers (manure, slurry etc.) and chemical fertilisers. Such analyses can be done by specialised laboratories, but are however rather expensive (€ 100 per analysis). Such analysis might therefore be advisable in particularly complex cases, together with other methods, to assess the different origins of nitrogen, as well as to assess the impact of changing practices in a particular area. Other analytic techniques for similar purposes complementing these are tracing boron (as boron is present in domestic waste waters), or fat acids and other organic compounds specific of different types of animals. Given the particular conditions, isotope analyses on hydrogen and oxygen might prove useful as well (to show the ‘age’ of groundwaters, and times of transfer of polluted waters in the soil and subsoil).

Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment obliges Member States to take the necessary steps, in accordance with best technical knowledge not entailing excessive costs, for the prevention of leaks in urban waste water collecting systems. According to information provided by the Dutch Ministry of the Environment, concentrations of nitrates are generally lower in groundwaters under urban areas than in rural areas with intensive agriculture.

Nitrates pollution of waters (groundwaters and surface waters, including marine waters) has several main sources such as agriculture and waste water. Existing Community legislation addresses, in a legally binding way, both agricultural and waste water-related nitrates pollution. A range of methods to analyse and assess the impact from different sources exist. The Commission will carefully observe the implementation, and will take the necessary legal steps (infringement procedures, including request for the imposition of penalty payments) where appropriate.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991. (2) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991. (3) Judgment in case C-293/97 of 29.4.1999, The Queen / Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Standley and others.

(2000/C 225 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2306/99

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Extermination of the hawksbill sea turtle?

The critically endangered hawksbill sea turtle has been listed in Appendix I to 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-held shell stocks to Japan; this proposal failed by a narrow margin. In preparation for the next CITES meeting (April 2000), Cuba invited scientific authorities from the 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 any reopening of the legal trade in sea turtle products would probably 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 hawksbill annually in the wider Caribbean, how does the Commission plan to address the fact that the annual removal of 10 % of the population will have a detrimental impact on this critically endangered species? C 225 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

4. How does the Commission plan to address concerns that sea turtles caught in Cuban waters are shared by other countries in the Caribbean, in other words, the killing and export of shells will affect the populations of other countries?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The Commission is aware that the government of Cuba has submitted two proposals for the limited resumption of international trade in hawksbill sea turtles for the 11th conference of the CITES parties.

Although the Community is not a party to CITES, the Commission nonetheless will make a proposal to the Council for a common position to be taken by the Member States at the conference of the parties as the regulation of trade in wildlife is subject to Community competence under 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).

The Commission’s proposal will be made in relation to the CITES down-listing criteria mentioned by the Honourable Member, which include the impact of the proposal on the conservation of the species in Cuban waters and elsewhere.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2000/C 225 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2308/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Mont Blanc Tunnel

In view of the tragedy earlier this year in the Mont Blanc Tunnel, which resulted in the deaths of at least 35 people, and the fact that a contributory factor in the accident was the enormous increase over the last few decades in the volume of traffic, has the Commission made clear its willingness to assist France and Italy in providing alternative means of transport, possibly rail, to ease the congestion which, at the same time, would help improve quality of the environment for those people who live directly on the line of the current tunnel route?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Increased road traffic is a general phenomenon in Europe, and the situation is even more acute in the alpine region, which is a central, enclosed area.

In order to help ease the congestion, the Commission is supporting projects due for completion in 2001 relating to the Lyons-Turin-(Trieste) high-speed/combined transport line, the removal of bottlenecks at Modane station, and the Ambérieu-Modane-Turin freight line.

In addition, the inland transport agreement signed by the Community and the Swiss Confederation in June offers the prospect of developing alternative trans-alpine routes for heavy vehicles.

Also, under the fifth research programme the Community will support research and development relating to techniques to reduce the risks and consequences of accidents in tunnels. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/95

(2000/C 225 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2309/99 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Imports of products under tariff heading 1604.14.00

The Thai authorities have asked to be allowed to export 8 000 tonnes of tuna fillets to the European Union through the opening up of a separate quota for the products included under tariff heading 1604.14.00. The Community tuna fillet market may, however, be considered to be adequately supplied from Community internal production and imports from the Andean Pact and ACP countries covered by the GSP. If necessary the quotas for those sources may be increased, for which reason there is no need to seek supplies from other countries. Furthermore, tariff heading 1604.14.00 includes tinned tuna, hence any opening up of the quota as requested by Thailand would seriously affect Community producers of tinned tuna and tuna fillets and also the industries of the Andean Pact and ACP countries.

In the light of above, would the Commission say what its intentions are with regard to the request submitted by Thailand?

When is the Commission going to submit the study which it promised the Council it would carry out into the actual figures for Community tuna fillet production and actual supply requirements?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2000)

The request by the Thai authorities to which the Honourable Member refers was sent, according to the information received by the Commission, to a trade association representing the European fish industry. The Commission could under no circumstances take an initiative on the basis of a document which was not addressed to it.

In addition to that, the Commission, when drawing up its proposals on the opening and management of autonomous tariff quotas, only considers requests which are sent to it by the Member States.

As mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission has committed itself to carrying out a study on the supply of tuna fillets to the Community market in the short and medium term. The commitment entered into by the Commission specified that this study has to be completed before the end of 1999.

The Commission will forward the study to the Council within the deadline set.

(2000/C 225 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2310/99 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Exports of tuna fillets to the EU

The Thai authorities have recently asked the European Union to open a new quota to allow 8 000 tonnes of products to be imported under tariff heading 1604.14.00 (tinned tuna and tuna fillets). The Community tuna fillet market may, however, be considered to be adequately supplied from Community internal production and imports from the Andean Pact and ACP countries covered by the GSP. If necessary the quotas for those sources may be increased, for which reason there is no need to seek supplies from other countries. As has been demonstrated in recent months, both Community industries and, if necessary, the industries of GSP countries can supply tuna fillets to Community processors at international market prices, for which reason it is very difficult to understand why there should be any need to open a new quota for products from Thailand.

In the light of the above, would the Commission supply:

a list of Thai companies which have exported tuna fillets to the EU under the last two quotas opened; C 225 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

the amounts exported by each of those companies to the European Union; a list of Community companies which buy tuna imported from Thailand, indicating the Member State in which they are based?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (21 January 2000)

The Commission is not able to provide the information asked for by the Honourable Member, since it involves the commercial activities of private businesses. Such data are not forwarded to the Commission by the customs administrations in the Member States.

The Commission is sending a list of the establishments in Thailand authorised to export fishery products to the Community directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2000/C 225 E/096) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2315/99 by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission (29 November 1999)

Subject: Financial aid to Mali and, in particular, to the Itema company

Will the European Commission inform the European Parliament as to the exact amount of financial aid that has been given to the Government of Mali under any of the EU-backed development aid programmes and the Lomé Conventions over the past five years and, more specifically, whether any of these monies were given directly or indirectly to a company called Itema in which the Malian Government is a substantial holder?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (21 December 1999)

The attached table provides a breakdown of European development fund (EDF) and Community budget funding to Mali since 1986. None of these funds were given either indirectly or directly to Itema.

Lomé III Lomé IV Lomé IV(a) (1986-1990) (1991-1996) (1997-2001)

1. National Indicative Programme 137 158 189

2. Other EDF resources FED Structural Adjustment Facility (SAF) 61,45 29,4 (1) Stabex 20,3 0,9 Refugees 0,7 Risk capital (EIB) 14,8 21,9 10 Sysmin 15

3. Community Budget Resources Food aid security 9,7 7,75 0,25 (NGOs) 6,7 9,1 2,65 Democracy & Human Rights 0,279 0,233 Decentralised cooperation 0,73 0,28 Tropical forests 0,80 Fight against AIDS 0,07 ECHO 1,0 7,6

4. TOTAL (1 + 2 + 3) 188,5 262,6 254,4

(1) A new SAF programme of an amount of € 37 million is under approval 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/97

(2000/C 225 E/097) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2317/99 by James Fitzsimons (UEN) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: New controls on the sale of St. John’s Wort

The European Commission is currently considering what controls, if any, should be applied to health food products and natural medicines. The Irish Medicines Board recently decided that, from 1 January 2000, St. John’s Wort (a herb that has been in use for thousands of years) cannot be sold without a doctor’s prescription. That decision might also affect other herbs such as Ginko Bilba.

1. Will the Commission indicate when it is likely to reach a decision on whether controls should or should not be applied to health food products and natural medicines?

2. Can the Commission confirm that St. John’s Wort and Ginko Bilba are readily available over the counter in all other EU Member States?

3. Can it also confirm that these two herbs, which have been the subject of intensive research over a long period of time, have been shown to be extremely safe?

4. In the light of its own information, does the Commission consider that restricting the sale of these two herbal products is justified?

5. Will the Commission ensure that its decision on whether or not controls are needed is publicised and made known immediately?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

According to Article 1 of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products (1), any substance or combination of substances presented for treating or preventing disease in human beings or animals shall be regarded as medicinal product. Likewise, any substance or combination of substances which may be administered to human beings or animals with a view to making a medicinal diagnosis or to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in human beings or animals, has to be considered a medicinal product. The decision whether a given product falls under the above definition of medicinal product and therefore needs to be authorised as medicinal product must be taken by the authorities on a case by case approach, taking into account both the ingredients and the presentation of a concrete product.

Community pharmaceutical legislation makes no distinction between ‘herbal’ or ‘non-herbal’ medicinal products. Therefore, in the absence of any specific legislation on ‘herbal medicinal products’, medicinal products containing St. John’s Wort or Gingko Biloba have to be assessed and authorised like other medicinal product.

Community legislation acknowledges, however, the fact that long term experience with well established substances may offer help in the assessment of the safety and efficacy of a given product. According to Article 4 paragraph 8 lit.a (ii) of Directive 65/65/EEC an applicant for a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product shall not be required to provide the results of pharmacological and toxicological tests or the results of clinical trials if he can demonstrate ‘by detailed references to published scientific literature presented in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 1 of Directive 75/318/EEC that the constituent or constituents of the medicinal product have a well established medicinal use, with recognized efficacy and an acceptable level of safety’. Commission Directive 1999/83/EC of 8 September 1999 amending the Annex to Council Directive 75/318/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to analytical, pharmacotoxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of medicinal products (2) has specified in detail the practical application of this provision and may be of particular help for the authorisation of well established herbal medicinal products. C 225 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

It is up to the regulatory authorities in Member States to apply the principles of Community pharmaceutical legislation and to take concrete decisions on authorisations and restrictions (e.g. medical prescription) for specific products. The Commission is not contemplating any changes to that approach.

As the practical application of the above rules falls under the competence of Member States, the Commission is not in a position to give answers to the very detailed and product-specific questions raised by the Honourable Member. The attention of the Honourable Member is, however, drawn to the activities of the ‘working party on herbal medicinal products’ at the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products (EMEA) in London, which was created with the aim of fostering the gradual harmonisation of the safety and efficacy evaluation of herbal medicinal products in the Community. Reports on the activities of this working group can be easily accessed through the EMEA’s website: http://www.eudra.org/emea.html.

(1) OJ 22, 9.2.1965. (2) OJ L 243, 15.9.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2320/99

by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Injuries caused by using a mouse

Injuries resulting from the use of a mouse look set to become a major occupational health hazard and have been proclaimed as the big new health and safety problem of the future. A Danish study of the problems caused by working at a VDU, commissioned by Århus district council, shows that just four hours a day is enough to cause damage to the wrists, elbows, neck and shoulders. However, it is not only those who use computers intensively that are at risk, for more than half of all the VDU users who took part in the survey had problems. Those who work at VDUs are just as badly affected physically as other groups who normally report most wrist, elbow neck and shoulder injuries.

Does the Commission know of similar research elsewhere in Europe into the extent of injuries caused by using a mouse?

The Danish study also shows that, unfortunately, there is a long way to go before the requirements of the European directive on working with display screen equipment are met. Only 36 % of desks could be height-regulated, and only 30 % of employees could rest their lower arm whilst using a keyboard or a mouse.

Does the Commission have an overview of how the directive is being implemented in other Member States?

Will it take steps to update the directive so that it takes account of any new findings concerning injuries caused by using a mouse at work.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990, which lays down minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment (1), has been transposed by all the Member States.

Pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Directive, Member States must report to the Commission every four years on the practical implementation of the provisions of the Directive, indicating the points of view of employers and workers. These reports have allowed the Commission to obtain an overall view of the practical enforcement of this Directive. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/99

Besides, in 1997 the Commission evaluated the scientific studies and the opinions expressed by the interested parties, notably as regards work with the mouse. According to the results of the evaluation, Directive 90/270/EEC adequately addresses these aspects, notably in point 1(d) of the Annex, which prescribes that the work surface shall be large enough to allow, inter alia, a flexible arrangement of the ancillary equipment (for example the mouse) and to allow workers to find a comfortable position.

As regards adjusting the height of the work desks, Directive 90/270/EEC does not lay down minimum requirements; rather, it provides that the work seat shall be adjustable in height and that the seat back shall be adjustable in both height and tilt.

Besides, with a view to evaluating the possible need for Community action on risk factors concerning upper limb disorders, the data assembled on this subject by the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work have been forwarded for opinion to the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work. Once the Committee has delivered its opinion the Commission will take whatever initiatives are required.

(1) OJ L 156, 21.6.1990.

(2000/C 225 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2321/99 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: European civilian and solidarity service

In view of the fact that compulsory military service has been abolished or its reform is at least being debated in many Member States and the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the establishment of a European civilian service on 22 September 1995, in which it called on the Commission to submit a proposal for the creation of a European civilian service, the Commission is asked to say whether it is considering the possibility of taking initiatives and measures to establish a three- to four-month civilian and solidarity service applicable to all men and women alike?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

A programme of European civilian and solidarity service has been established through Decision No 1686/98/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 20 July 1998 establishing the Community action programme ‘European Voluntary Service for Young People’ (1).

The programme has the following objectives (Article 1):

(…) It is intended, while respecting equal opportunities for men and women, to encourage mobility and solidarity among young people as part of active citizenship, to promote, and give them the chance of acquiring, informal education experience in a variety of sectors of activity, which may be one of the foundations of their future development, and to promote, through their participation in transnational activities of benefit to the community, an active contribution on their part to the ideals of democracy, tolerance and solidarity in the context of European integration and to cooperation between the European Community and third countries.

However, it has to be stressed that European voluntary service is not a substitute for military or alternative services which are according to the principle of subsidiary within the responsibility of the Member States. Concerning this item recital 21 of the decision says:

Whereas European voluntary service activities are not a substitute for military service, for the alternative service formulae provided in particular for conscientious objectors or for the compulsory civilian service existing in several Member States (…).

The activities of European voluntary service will be continued from the year 2000 on within the framework of the Community action programme YOUTH (2), which is currently under negotiation. C 225 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

The Commission has recently launched a comparative analysis and description of all civil service schemes including those that are an alternative to military service in the Member States. The results which should be available in the second half of the year should identify possibilities for building up synergies between national civil service schemes and European voluntary service.

(1) OJ L 214, 31.7.1998. (2) OJ C 210, 22.7.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2322/99 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the EC and the Argentine Republic

The Commission is proposing that a scientific and technological agreement should be concluded with the Argentine Republic. It would provide for an increase in cooperation and exchanges of views on research and development.

As the Committee on Budgets has already stated, further and more precise information is needed from the Commission in this regard.

Without answers to the following questions it will be impossible to give this matter appropriate consideration:

1. What financial contribution will the Argentine partners be making to the research activities?

2. Are there any analyses of the benefits and cost efficiency of international cooperation agreements of this kind? If so, what do they say?

3. To what extent are scientists, research workers, officials and other public employees involved under this cooperation agreement?

4. Does this agreement also extend to research in the area of biotechnology or military biotechnology?

(2000/C 225 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2323/99 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the EC and the People’s Republic of China

The Commission is proposing that a scientific and technological agreement should be concluded with the People’s Republic of China. It would provide for an increase in cooperation and exchanges of views on research and development.

As the Committee on Budgets has already stated, further and more precise information is needed from the Commission in this regard.

Without answers to the following questions it will be impossible to give this matter appropriate consideration:

1. What financial contribution will the Chinese partners be making to the research activities?

2. Are there any analyses of the benefits and cost efficiency of international cooperation agreements of this kind? If so, what do they say? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/101

3. To what extent are scientists, research workers, officials and other public employees involved under this cooperation agreement?

4. Does this agreement also extend to research in the area of biotechnology or military biotechnology?

(2000/C 225 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2324/99 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the EC and the Russian Federation

The Commission is proposing that a scientific and technological agreement should be concluded with the Russian Federation. It would provide for an increase in cooperation and exchanges of views on research and development.

As the Committee on Budgets has already stated, further and more precise information is needed from the Commission in this regard.

Without answers to the following questions it will be impossible to give this matter appropriate consideration:

1. What financial contribution will the Russian partners be making to the research activities?

2. Are there any analyses of the benefits and cost efficiency of international cooperation agreements of this kind? If so, what do they say?

3. To what extent are scientists, research workers, officials and other public employees involved under this cooperation agreement?

4. Does this agreement also extend to research in the area of biotechnology or military biotechnology?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2322/99, E-2323/99 and E-2324/99 given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Partners from non-member countries in all scientific and technical cooperation projects entered into under these various agreements must ensure that their own research costs are covered.

Under those agreements, no Community funding is thus granted to partners from such countries. Nevertheless, in accordance with Council and Parliament Decisions, and as was the case before the agreements took effect, China and Argentina continue to remain eligible for Community funding under the specific ‘research for development’ programme. As for Russia, even after the agreement takes effect it will continue to benefit from Community funding of its INCO-Copernicus and INTAS activities.

The scientific and technical cooperation agreements between the Community and Argentina, the Commun- ity and China and the Community and Russia will not, in themselves, generate any additional costs to the Community budget apart from the management costs arising from said agreements. There has so far been no genuine cost-benefit analysis of the other agreements on scientific and technological cooperation.

However, assessments are being, and will also be, carried out at cooperation-instrument and/or project level with Argentina, China and Russia, the same applying to the other agreements in force.

The agreements with Argentina and China make specific provision for such assessments at regular intervals, any extension of agreements being subject to the outcome of those assessments. C 225 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Community scientists and research workers are directly affected by those agreements, which enable them to enter into scientific and technical cooperation with their opposite numbers in the non-member countries concerned and to exchange ideas, experience and skills. That cooperation and those exchanges may, moreover, spur an increase in the human resources devoted to research within the Community.

The Commission’s officials and other servants act as sources of information on the potential offered by the agreement for the scientific communities, and also follow up the cooperation entered into and turn this to account by their involvement, in particular, in the activities of each joint steering committee set up in order to implement each of these agreements. They then report to the joint bodies which are responsible for following-up all of their relationships with the Community for each of the countries concerned.

The S&T Cooperation Agreements only concern civilian research and embrace research in biotechnology. In the case of Russia, biotechnology is not referred to specifically but, in actual fact, is included implicitly in that biomedical research and health, which are increasingly dependent upon this, are themselves referred to specifically.

(2000/C 225 E/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2326/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Import of steel of dubious quality for use in reinforced concrete

The earthquakes which have occurred in Greece and Turkey have caused increased concern regarding the quality of steel used in reinforced concrete. It is an ‘open secret’ that imported steel on the Greek market is in many cases of lower quality than that indicated. It is alleged that the checks carried out are either inadequate or, if they do reveal that the steel is of inferior quality, it is still allowed to enter the European market with a higher quality designation (for example steel ribs), facilitating its use as a product of higher quality than that actually ascertained, in the absence of preventive checks (market regulation).

1. What steps will the Commission take, in cooperation with the Member States, to step up monitoring procedures?

2. When will uniform quality standards be introduced for steel in reinforced concrete, together with uniform monitoring procedures based on these standards?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

When considering imports of steel products from non-member countries where manufacturing standards may be different from those used in the Community, we need to distinguish clearly between the way such products are processed through customs and any judgment of actual product quality.

As far as customs procedures are concerned, product quality is only considered in order to place the product in one or other category of the customs nomenclature corresponding to the harmonised international tariff system (e.g. alloy steel, non-alloy steel). Any dishonest use of customs declarations, e.g. to gain certain advantages in the application of customs duties, is punishable by law, following an inquiry by the national customs authorities.

Generally speaking, the legal basis for attesting the conformity of construction products is Commission Decision 97/597/EC of 14 July 1997 on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards reinforcing and prestressing 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/103

steel for concrete (1). For its part, the Commission will continue to support the work of the European Committee for Iron and Steel Standardisation (ECISS) within the context of the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) to establish harmonised standards.

However, when it comes to product quality, and in particular the possibility of products being misused, it falls to the parties involved, both buyers and sellers, to ensure that all the proper provisions are included in the contract. Since the use of steel products is subject, within the Community, to technical monitoring systems and controls which exclude the use of materials which fail to comply with standards in sensitive sectors, the falsification of quality certificates would fall within the area of private law.

(1) OJ L 240, 2.9.1997.

(2000/C 225 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2328/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Health problems arising from the operation of an olive kernel oil plant in Iraklion (Crete)

In Iraklion in Crete, a particularly pollutant olive kernel processing plant is producing an extremely unpleasant odour, affecting the local residents and the city hospital, the colleges of technology and many schools and day nurseries. Despite complaints by the local and prefectural authorities and the unfavourable findings of the Technical Infrastructures and Environment Committee, the Ministry for the Environment, Town Planning and Public Works is continuing to renew the plant’s operating licence.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Have environmental impact studies, together with the necessary technical studies, concerning the plant as a whole been carried out?

2. Have all appropriate calculations been made and has an evaluation been carried out of measures recommended in the past?

3. Will the Commission take measures to have the plant definitively closed down in accordance with a request to the Ministry for the Environment, Town Planning and Public Works from the Crete regional Secretary-General and other bodies?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The Commission does not know if an environmental impact assessment has been carried out for the plant in question.

The national authorities are responsible for checking whether the requirements of Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment, amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (1), have been met.

The Commission does not have any information on the pollution caused by this plant or the approval of an environmental impact assessment. The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to send it a dossier describing the plant’s polluting activities, so that it can contact the Greek authorities and investigate the matter.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. C 225 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2332/99 by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Innovative actions increasing transactional business by European SMEs accessing third markets (call for proposals 98/C 219/13)

Would the Commission provide the following information on the above topic (1):

total number of projects subsidised in 1998 and 1999,

identity of the beneficiaries,

amount of funding made available,

the European participants in the consortia,

the third countries involved,

date of the next call for proposals.

(1) OJ C 219, 15.7.1998, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Following the call for proposals (98/C 219/13), the Commission awarded subsidies to four proposals namely the proposal by EIC-CRCI Orleans (FR) regarding a Firmenpool action France-Israel (subsidy of € 80 000), the proposal by Excal (Spain) regarding a Firmenpool action Spain-Mexico/Argentina (subsidy of € 75 909), the proposal by Lisburn Enterprise (United Kingdom) regarding a Compagnonnage action N.Ireland/United States (subsidy of € 80 000), and the proposal by MLIP (Germany) regarding a Firmenpool action Germany/United Kingdom and United States (subsidy of € 80 000).

The call for proposals did not request proponents to set up consortia. Nevertheless MLIP has associated to the development of its action Business Link from Thames Valley, Greater Nottingham and Isle of Wight (United Kingdom), three German Chambers of Commerce (Magdeburg, Leipzig, Dresden) and AFG Mecklenburg.

Due to the experimental nature of the programme ‘Innovative actions’, the Commission will take a decision on the possible launch of a new call for proposals after the results of these four projects have been evaluated.

(2000/C 225 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2333/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Measures for the benefit of disabled people who practise sport and use IT networks

In view of the fact that the process of European unification and cooperation must not exclude any social group, such as the disabled, that there are 37 million disabled people in the European Union, according to figures supplied by the European Disability Forum, and that recreational sport and IT networks such as the Internet offer the disabled great opportunities to socialise and communicate, can the Commission say what initiatives to promote the practice of sport and the use of IT networks it has organised to date to enable disabled people to communicate and socialise?

What initiatives is the Commission considering promoting in the next few years? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/105

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that people with disabilities must have access to the same opportunities in order to be able to participate fully in all aspects of society, including sporting activities and new technology. This is the objective of the Community disability strategy as identified by the Communication of the Commission of 30 July 1996 (1) on equality of opportunity for people with disabilities.

Organisations involved in sports for people with disabilities had an opportunity to take part in the call for proposals published at the beginning of this year to grant funding for transnational measures to combat discrimination against disabled people. Similarly, in the proposal for a Community Action Programme 2001-2006 to combat discrimination, which was adopted by the Commission on 25 November 1999 (2), sport is recognised as a fundamental vehicle in promoting equal opportunities for people with disabilities. Finally, in future, as far as legal and budgetary conditions permit, the Commission intends to devote particular attention to the promotion of sport with a view to the integration of the disabled.

As far as new technology is concerned, the Commission has launched calls for proposals in the area of information technology (IT) applications and services for elderly and disabled people. The legal basis for this is TIDE (Technology Initiative for Disabled and Elderly People, 1991−1992), TIDE Bridge Phase (1993−1994), the 4th (1994−1998 with a budget of EUR 60 million) and 5th (1998−2002 with a budget of EUR 40 million) framework programmes for research and technological development (RTD). The proposals selected include RTD projects to promote independent living and better integration of elderly and disabled people into society. Some accompanying measures such as Impact also provide tools to establish and assess the best assistive technology device which can support access by elderly and disabled people to IT networks or help them to handle daily activities within the work or home environment. This also includes leisure activities.

On 8 December 1999, the Commission launched an initiative entitled ‘e-Europe An Information Society for All’ (3), which proposes ambitious targets to bring the benefits of the information society within reach of all Europeans. The initiative focuses on ten priority areas, one of which is ‘e-Participation’, which aims to ensure that the development of the information society takes full account of the needs of disabled people. One of the objectives of this initiative is to make the web pages of European and national administrations accessible to disabled people.

(1) COM(96) 406 final. (2) COM(1999) 564 final and COM(1999) 567 final. (3) COM(1999) 687.

(2000/C 225 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2334/99

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Infringement of anti-trust rules in connection with the certification of PDI and PGI products

Following the less than exhaustive answer to my previous Written Question P-1845/99 (1) can the Commission clarify the following:

Article 10(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (2) states that the inspection structure for PDI and PGI products may comprise ‘one or more designated inspection authorities and/or private bodies approved for that purpose’. C 225 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

The Italian Government’s decision to designate one private company for each product was criticised by:

the Italian anti-trust authority in the notification/opinion of 6 March 1998 published in Bulletin No 8/98 number 12 in the notification series;

the Lazio Regional Administrative Court in injunction No 2038/1998.

Furthermore, in that injunction the Lazio Regional Administrative Court states that the Italian version of the EEC Regulation does not correspond to the other language versions, which it considers to be absolutely clear in establishing, as a principle, that there should be several private inspection bodies.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. whether it is aware of the opinions expressed by the Italian anti-trust authority and the Lazio Regional Administrative Court;

2. whether it agrees with the views expressed by the Italian judicial and supervisory authorities:

3. what steps it intends to take in this context?

(1) See page 27. (2) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 1999)

The Commission was never officially informed either of the opinion of the Italian antitrust authority, or of the ruling by the Lazio administrative court, although it heard of them unofficially.

It is not the habit of the Commission to comment on decisions of this kind, which fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States.

In the light of its replies to the Honourable Member’s written questions P-1845/99 (1) and E-2066/99 (2), the Commission does not feel the need to adopt any measures in this respect.

(1) See page 27. (2) See page 46.

(2000/C 225 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2335/99 by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Nuclear reactors in the applicant countries

1. What is the Commission’s position with regard to nuclear reactors in the applicant countries?

2. Does the Commission intend that the reactors should be shut down ahead of schedule and if so, what is its timetable for this?

3. Does the Commission agree with the closure plans for reactors contained, in particular, in the national energy plans of Lithuania and Slovakia?

4. Can the Commission say whether and when nuclear reactors in Lithuania are due to be inspected? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/107

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

1. The Commission has always accorded particular attention to nuclear safety in the context of enlargement. This area will be subject to continued scrutiny and supportive action by the Commission in the pre-accession period. The Commission has entered into close co-operation with the safety authorities of the candidate countries in order to strengthen their resources and their independence and thereby to further extend the nuclear safety culture which has developed within the Community.

2. The Commission’s policy on these issues is clearly outlined in Agenda 2000 of July 1997, where the reactors of the nuclear power plants in the candidate countries are divided into three categories: reactors of Western design, Soviet-designed plants which can be upgraded to meet international safety standards, and Soviet-designed units which can not be upgraded at a reasonable cost. The Commission has repeatedly stated that the third category nuclear power plants operating in candidate countries should be closed at earliest practical dates, in the framework of a comprehensive energy strategy. This applies to Bohunice V-1 in Slovakia and to the Ignalina nuclear power plant (NPP) in Lithuania, as well as to units 1-4 of the Kozloduy NPP in Bulgaria.

3. The Commission has had intense and fruitful discussions on this issue with the authorities of the candidate countries. In the second regular reports on progress of candidates toward accession of 13 October 1999, the Commission welcomed the decisions of the Lithuanian and Slovak authorities on early closure of the Ignalina and Bohunice V-1 reactors. The Commission also welcomes the recent understanding with Bulgaria with regard to early closure of Kozloduy 1-4. The Commission regards these decisions as an expression of the countries’ commitment to integration and as an important contribution to nuclear safety in Europe. The Commission will certainly continue the dialogue on this issue with the authorities concerned.

4. The Lithuanian safety authority ensures on a regular basis that the operator of the nuclear reactors implements the safety provisions of the safety improvement programme. Granting of operation permits is conditional on the results of these safety revisions, the safety evaluation reports. The Commission supports the Lithuanian safety authority and its work with resources from the PHARE programme.

(2000/C 225 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2337/99 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Potentially fatal health hazards arising from exposure to microwave radiation from mobile telephones

Recent research by Swedish scientists and other public health experts have shown that exposure to radiation from the use of mobile telephones causes serious damage to the human organism for example the development of carcinogenic tumours on the brain and the acoustic nerve, together with functional genetic disorders.

What measures and policies will the Commission launch with a view to ensuring the safe use of mobile telephones and the protection of public health in general?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The Commission has taken due note of concerns on possible harmful effects on health of electromagnetic fields.

On 9 March 1999, the Council and the Parliament adopted a Directive 1999/5/EC on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (1). This lays down the requirements that radio transmitters need to meet in order to be placed on the market and be operated. It envisages that Member States may restrict operation for health reasons, e.g. by imposing certain minimum distances between the transmitter and the public. C 225 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

On 12 July 1999, the Council adopted a Recommendation 1999/519/EC (2) proposed by the Commission on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields. This takes account of the scientific opinion of the International commission on non-ionizing radiation, supported by the Commis- sion’s scientific steering committee referring to established effects on human health of exposure to electromagnetic fields.

In this context, it should be noted that the extensive research done in Europe through the co-ordinated action of the COST 244 and 244bis projects over the last decade has not demonstrated any reproducible detrimental effects on health at the levels of radio-frequency emissions typical of mobile phones and cell masts.

If there is any adverse health effect, it can only be a longer term effect, which is as yet unknown. Therefore, research should further continue to measure such longer term effects. The results of current and future research in this area will be considered in the context of the reporting procedure provided for in the text of the Recommendation.

In the context of the 5th Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstra- tion, the programme on ‘Quality of Life and Management of living resources’ foresees in its key action 4 ‘Environment and Health ’ specific research on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation and in particular epidemiological and biomedical studies to determine possible effects linked to non-ionising radiation, particularly from cellular phones and antennas (point 2 of the quality of life work programme (3)). Several projects issued from the first call of this programme will soon be launched.

(1) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999. (2) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999. (3) Commission decision C/99/493 of 4 March 1999.

(2000/C 225 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2341/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Reopening of the oncological hospital in Kifisia

As a result of earthquake damage to the ‘Agioi Anagyroi’ hospital, 2 500 cancer patients currently undergoing treatment which can be neither delayed nor interrupted, are now unable to obtain their treatment, while at the same time there are waiting lists for admission to other oncological hospitals.

The solution proposed by the Greek Government involving the transfer of individual hospital wards or the closure and dispersal of hospital wards and laboratories to non-hospital premises will not, in the opinion of the hospital’s Scientific Committee, enable patients to continue their treatment effectively. It therefore proposed that the hospital be redeployed to suitable available premises belonging to named hospitals which have agreed to this solution.

Can the Commission indicate whether funding can be provided for the temporary redeployment of the hospital in accordance with the recommendations of the Scientific Committee, pending completion of the new hospital building?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission could consider part-financing the dispersal or provisional relocation of the Kifisia cancer hospital if the Greek authorities so request and on the basis of detailed information on the type of expenditure. The choice of the solution to be proposed is the sole responsibility of the national authorities. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/109

(2000/C 225 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2342/99 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: 1998 Football World Cup Finals

Which European Commission officials were given World Cup tickets at the time of that event, and were those officials involved in assessing the fine subsequently imposed by the Commission on the football authorities?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2000)

No-one involved in the instruction of the case, from the responsible member of the Commission to the rapporteurs of the case in the Competition Directorate general, was given tickets by the comité français d’organisation de la coupe du monde de football 1998 (CFO) or the national football federations.

(2000/C 225 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2343/99 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Aflatoxin fungus

Would the Commission inform me of recent actin taken by the Commission concerning permissible levels of aflatoxin fungus and Brazil nuts?

I have been approached about the possible impact of this action on forest people in the Amazon region. I would like further information on the scientific basis for this action and any assistance that the EU is giving to producers.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1525/98 of 16 July 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 194/97 of 31 January 1997 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (1) establishes maximum limits for aflatoxin B1 and aflatoxin total for groundnuts, nuts, including brazil nuts, dried fruit, cereals and derived products of these commodities and for aflatoxin M1 in milk. For nuts, including brazil nuts, and processed products thereof intended for direct human consumption or as an ingredient in foodstuffs, maximum limits are at the level of 4 microgram per kilogram (µg/kg) aflatoxin total and 2 µg/kg aflatoxin B1. Sorting techniques and other possible physical treatments which reduce the aflatoxin content can be carried out on unprocessed nuts to obtain the final consumer product. Taking these techniques into account, higher maximum limits have been established for nuts, including brazil nuts (10 µg/kg aflatoxin total and 5 µg/kg aflatoxin B1) to be subjected to sorting or other physical treatment, before their human consumption or their use as an ingredient in foodstuffs.

The scientific committee for food (SCF) expressed on 23 September 1994 an opinion on aflatoxins, ochratoxin A and patulin (2). At that time the Committee concluded for aflatoxins: ‘Aflatoxins are genotoxic carcinogens. For this type of carcinogen, it is generally felt that there is no threshold dose below which no tumour formation would occur. In other words, only a zero level of exposure will result in no risk’. It agreed with the recent evaluations of the International agency for research on cancer (IARC) (1993) with respect to the carcinogenicity and genotoxicity of the aflatoxins. From the many reports on risk assessment, it can be concluded that even very low levels of exposure to aflatoxins, i.e. 1 nanogram per kilogram (ng/kg) body weight per day or less contribute to the risk of liver cancer. C 225 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

The SCF re-discussed the toxicology of aflatoxins at its 108th plenary session in September 1997 (3) in the light of a joint FAO/WHO expert committee on food additives (JECFA) evaluation (4). The SCF recognised the great effort made by JECFA to perform a quantitative risk assessment by combining carcinogenic potencies and human exposure data, but noted also the several limitations and assumptions inherent in this approach, which were clearly set out in the report. The SCF noted that the toxicology of the aflatoxins is not questioned by JECFA ‘Aflatoxins are amongst the most potent mutagenic and carcinogenic substances known’ and that several statements of the JECFA are not incompatible with the SCF opinion on aflatoxins expressed in 1994 and concluded that this opinion remains valid. On the basis of this assessment it is considered that fixing maximum levels, besides preventive measures to avoid contamination, contribute to the protection of the consumer. These limits must be set at a level as low as reasonably achievable.

The Commission is fully aware of the importance of the brazil nut production for the social conditions of the local producers and for the preservation of the Amazon forest. The Commission is therefore currently examining under the technical co-operation programmes with the countries involved which technical and financial assistance can be provided for in order to maintain brazil nut production as a way of preservation of the bio-diversity of the Amazon rainforest, to improve the quality of the brazil nut with regard to aflatoxin content and to improve the social conditions of the small, local growers. However, these objectives are secondary to the protection of European consumers from the dangers to public health from aflatoxin contamination.

(1) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998, p. 43 and p. 93. (2) Reports of the scientific committee for food, 35th series. (3) Minutes of the 108th meeting of the Scientific Committee for Food held on 18-19 September 1997 in Brussels. (4) Forty-ninth meeting, Rome, 17-26 June 1997, Summary and Conclusions, enclosed section.

(2000/C 225 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2344/99 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco

Although tomato imports from Morocco are subject to a quota of 150 676 tonnes, that country exported a total of 181 542 tonnes to the EU between October 1998 and March 1999, thereby infringing Article 2(4) of the Protocol on the arrangements applying to imports into the Community of agricultural products originating in Morocco, which states that ‘Morocco hereby undertakes to ensure that total exports to the Community during the periods and under the conditions specified in this Protocol do not exceed the amounts agreed in Articles 3 and 4.’

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to ensure that the protocol is complied with in future? How does it intend to compensate Community producers for the financial losses incurred as a result of Morocco’s infringement of the protocol?

(2000/C 225 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2345/99 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco

Morocco has infringed Article 3 of the Protocol on the arrangements applying to imports into the Community of agricultural products originating in Morocco, which stipulated the monthly breakdown of the quota and the 20 % overshoot which is allowed. In so doing, Morocco caused the markets to collapse in November and January of the last marketing year and did serious damage to the sector. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/111

(2000/C 225 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2346/99 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco

Why has the Commission not monitored the quota nor taken the necessary action to prevent Morocco from exceeding the volume of tomato exports laid down in the Association Agreement and in Protocol No 1 thereto on the arrangements applying to imports into the Community of agricultural products originating in Morocco, in particular in Article 3 thereof?

(2000/C 225 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2347/99 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco

Why has the Commission not required Morocco to pay the specific customs duty, as it should do since the prices of that country’s exports have been below the entry price established in the Association Agreement and Article 2 of Protocol No 3 to the Agreement should therefore apply?

(2000/C 225 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2348/99 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco

Why has the Commission not taken the necessary action to ensure that Morocco adheres to the monthly breakdown of the quota and the permitted 20 % overshoot, as laid down in Article 3 to Protocol 1 to the Association Agreement?

(2000/C 225 E/118) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2483/99 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Illegal imports of tomatoes from Morocco

By virtue of the agreements between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco, Moroccan tomato producers can gain access to the European market at a tariff of EUR 500 per tonne for a maximum quota C 225 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

of 150 676 tonnes. Reports from various quarters had suggested that Morocco had been breaking the said agreements, employing various means to exceed the quota allocated to it by varying degrees. Highly reliable official sources have since confirmed this. According to Eurostat, tomato imports from Morocco over the period 1998-1999 in fact amounted to 181 542 tonnes, more than 30 000 tonnes in excess of the negotiated quota.

Confirmation of this was provided by the Director-General for Agriculture himself, Mr Guy Legras, during the partnership day with the outermost regions organised by the Commission under the patronage of its President, Mr Prodi. Mr Legras stated further that the Commission lacked the human resources needed to conduct the inspection work that would ensure that the quantity of tomatoes entering the Community market from Morocco did not exceed the set quota.

Bearing in mind that this situation has placed European tomato producers B and above all those in the south, where production calendars coincide with those of Morocco B at a severe disadvantage, what measures has the Commission taken to compel Morocco to comply with its undertakings vis-à-vis the import quota? On what date does it intend to start charging the tariff applicable once the authorised quota ceiling has been exceeded?

Does the Commission envisage introducing any other measures to enable it to conduct the inspection duties assigned to it with regard to tomatoes more effectively than has hitherto been the case?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2344/99, E-2345/99, E-2346/99, E-2347/99, E-2348/99 and P-2483/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission is closely monitoring developments in fresh tomato imports from Morocco.

Having noted that the quantities agreed on for the 1998/1999 marketing year were being exceeded, the Commission drew the Moroccan authorities’ attention to the importance of respecting those quantities if the Community market was to remain in equilibrium.

During the current marketing year, developments in imports in October 1999 prompted the Commission to request urgent talks with the Moroccan authorities. Those talks were held in Rabat on 22 December 1999 but did not lead to a solution guaranteeing that the granted quota would not be exceeded. Accordingly, and without prejudice to future talks, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 2767/1999, introduced an import licence system, in accordance with the exchange of letters between the Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on 22 December 1994.

The Commission would remind the Member States that they are responsible for the correct application of the rules in force concerning imports, including the setting of customs duties due.

(2000/C 225 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2355/99

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Standardisation of flight control systems

Some 30 different flight control systems are currently in use worldwide. This simply exacerbates the problem of air traffic congestion. Standardising flight control systems in Europe might be beneficial both to the environment and to the economy. What does the Commission intend to do to have flight control systems standardised at least in Europe? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/113

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2000)

On 1 December 1999, the Commission adopted a communication (1) on the current situation of air traffic delays and on new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management system it needs to ensure the proper functioning of its internal market. The question raised by the Honourable Member, regarding the multiplicity of air traffic control systems in Europe and the urgent need for their integration, is answered in this document.

(1) COM(1999) 614 final.

(2000/C 225 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2357/99 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Law on supplementary honorary judges 276/97

It is well known that a chronic shortage of staff and structural inefficiencies within the Italian judicial system have resulted in major delays in the processing of civil cases. To remedy this state of affairs, Law 276/97 has been used for the purpose of appointing 1 000 GOAs [temporary honorary judges] in order to enable the civil cases which were still outstanding on 30 April 1995 to be settled within five years.

Those recruited as GOAs are mainly lawyers with approximately 35 years of professional experience. Even today, however, there are fewer than half as many of them as was envisaged under the law by means of which they were appointed. Judges attend approximately 35 hearings each day in rooms about 20m2 in size and in the presence of 60 or 70 people. Honorary judges do the same job with the same degree of commitment and responsibility as permanent judges for an annual salary of 20 million lire plus 200 000 lire net for every judgement and settlement, although they do no receive the non-pensionable judge’s allowance which is paid under Law 27/81 to all magistrates to compensate them for the risks involved in the performance of their duties.

In the light of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

1. Does such a difference in remuneration for what are identical duties and services not contravene the principle of justice and equal treatment for all people which has already been recognised through the application of Law 303/98 in respect of the appointment and remuneration of honorary appeal judges?

2. Does the application of Law 276/97 in the absence of appropriate structures not infringe the laws on safety in the workplace?

3. Would the Commission give its opinion on the need for a possible revision of the law appointing GOAs with retroactive effect from 2 November 1998, so as to ensure that the total remuneration and the judge’s allowance paid to GOAs are equivalent to the total remuneration paid to permanent judges of equal grade and with the same responsibilities?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2000)

The internal organisation of the administration of justice in a Member State, including the remuneration of staff, does not fall within the scope of Community law.

Italy has transposed Community health and safety law into national law. It is for the national authorities to assess whether health and safety measures are sufficient in the circumstances described. C 225 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2363/99 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Processing of lead batteries

Is the Commission aware of the article headed ‘Giftige afdankertjes’ (toxic cast-offs) (in Milieudefensie, September 1999) which refers to 40 0000 t of used lead batteries being exported from the Netherlands to Belgium and France (83 % to Belgium, 16 % to France)?

In Spring this year the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Planning and the Environment granted a licence for exporting 2 500 t of lead batteries to the FMM recycling plant in Brussels. According to Le Soir Illustré, FMM is a major polluter of the Brussels local authority of Anderlecht. A soil sample taken at the entrance to the plant was found to contain 20 % lead. J.-M. Veszely, writing in Le Soir Illustré says: ‘The filters are not replaced promptly. The water purification system does not work properly and does not have sufficient capacity. The settling tank is permanently clogged. Once it has been denatured the sulphur acid goes straight into the drains. In other words, there is no recycling’.

Chapter B, Article 6(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1) on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community says: ‘The [recovery] centre must have adequate technical capacity for the recovery of the waste in question under conditions presenting no danger to human health or to the environment’.

Does the Commission agree that this ‘centre’ does not have the technical capacity to satisfy the provisions of the regulation?

What action is the Commission planning to take to stop or to prevent these practices?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The provision of the shipment regulation, 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 quoted by the Honourable Member, namely Article 6, paragraph 5, 4th indent, reflects the general principle of environmentally sound recovery of wastes as laid down in Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1). This Article obliges Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment. For the purposes of implementing this Article, the Directive provides that any establishment or undertaking which carries out recovery operations must obtain a permit. Pursuant to Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991, on hazardous wastes (2), the permit requirement may also be replaced by a mere registration, provided that certain conditions are met. One of the conditions is that types and quantities of waste and methods of recovery are such that the conditions laid down in Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC are met. In addition, a Member State which wants to make use of this possibility to replace the permit requirement by a mere registration, is obliged to notify this to the Commission. The Commission has not received any notification from Belgium to this effect.

On the factual side, the Commission has no knowledge of the conditions under which lead accumulators are recovered in the recycling plant mentioned by the Honourable Member. It will request the Belgian authorities for information, following which it will determine whether further action on its part is necessary.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. (2) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/115

(2000/C 225 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2367/99

by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Budget nomenclature encouraging the practice of false subsidies

The Committee of Independent Experts’ Second Report on Reform of the Commission strongly criticises the layout of the budget, which makes a distinction between Part A and Part B appropriations. Point 2.1.8. says ‘With regard to subsidies, the Part A/part B nomenclature, far from leading to clarity, adds to the confusion … a large proportion of subsidies are in fact disguised contracts which the Commission refuses to treat as such, for a whole series of reasons, the main one being that transparency is even less fully assured for subsidies than for contracts’.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether it intends, when drafting the next budget, to maintain only the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure;

2. what the subsidies disguised as contracts mentioned by the Committee are, who those responsible are and what steps it intends to take and according to what time-scale?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2000)

I would inform the Honourable Member that the distinction between compulsory expenditure (CE) and non-compulsory expenditure (NCE) stems from the rules on budget procedure laid down in Article 272 (former Article 203) of the EC Treaty. The budget that is adopted and published in the Official Journal does not make this distinction for the different headings. It is only at the preliminary draft budget stage that the Commission states its position, in an annex, on the classification to be followed throughout the budget procedure. Otherwise, the distinction is unlikely to be relevant in the grants debate.

In July 1998 the Commission approved a Vade-mecum on grant management (1), which came into force on 1 January 1999. Among other things, this laid down a clear distinction between ‘procurement spending’, defined as a purchase of some product or service from the market and the object of a commercial contract, and ‘grants’, defined as ‘a direct payment of a non-commercial nature by the Commission to promote an EU policy aim’. Awards of both contracts and grants are subject to rigorous but different rules.

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

(2000/C 225 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2372/99

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Relaunching of mining activities in north-eastern Halkidiki

Plans have been approved by the Greek Government to relaunch mining and, in particular, gold extraction activities by the TVX company in north-eastern Halkidiki with greatly increased plant capacity and size, in addition to a large gold metallurgy plant using cynagen, and producing exceptionally toxic and dangerous effluent containing arsenic, cadmium, lead, sulphurous compounds, cyanides and other substances. C 225 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Given that:

it was decided to launch these activities without any prior environmental impact assessment,

the mining and metallurgical operations will destroy both ground and surface water not only because of the vast quantities used at every operational phase but also because of the deterioration of quality as a result of pollution by extremely dangerous substances, in addition to which measures are already needed to remedy existing pollution,

this constitutes an infringement of Community law, in particular Directives 77/795 (1) and 80/68 (2), together with the new framework directive concerning water,

these activities will be taking place in an area designated as GR 1270005 under the Natura 2000 programme, containing at least 15 different types of habitat, 76 species of fauna, 26 major species of flora listed in Directive 92/43 (3) and 49 species listed in Directive 79/409 (4) concerning the conservation of wild birds and in the Berne Convention,

measures have been decided (for example the diversion of a water course) and works have begun (road building in the Natura area, drilling etc.) in the absence of any environmental impact surveys, thereby infringing Directive 97/11 (5).

Can the Commission investigate the matter and establish whether a relevant environmental impact service has been carried out and whether the other necessary measures have been taken to comply with Community law?

What measures will the Commission take if it discovers that infringements of Community environment legislation such as the abovementioned have in fact occurred?

(1) OJ L 334, 24.12.1977, p. 29. (2) OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43. (3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (4) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. (5) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The ‘Mount Stratonico’ site under code number GR1270005 has indeed been proposed by Greece as a site of Community importance, by virtue of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The importance of that area lies mainly in the variety of forest habitat types it hosts, including priority ones.

In view of the future inclusion of that site in the Natura 2000 network, any activities that could seriously compromise its integrity should be avoided.

The Commission is aware of the TVX project in Halkidiki. The project was presented under the ‘Industry’ operational programme for 19941999. The Commission had asked for a complete environmental impact study in accordance with the requirements of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, in addition to the other measures to protect and restore historic sites requested by the Greek authorities when the investment was approved. However, the Greek authorities informed the Commission that the project had been abandoned, so the matter was not pursued.

In response to the information presented by the Honourable Member, the Commission will contact the Greek authorities to check whether the requirements of the said Directives have been complied with and if the conservation value of the site has been considered.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/117

(2000/C 225 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2373/99 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Integrated tourist development in Messinia

At the end of the year, the Greek Parliament is due to discuss plans for the largest tourist investment project yet carried out in Greece, involving the creation of an integrated tourist development complex in the prefecture of Messinia, the works being scheduled to begin in March 2000. The complex will be situated along designated coastal areas (715 hectares) in Messinia. 35 % of the funding will come from own resources, 35 % from loans and 30 % from the Community.

Recently I have received many complaints from local residents and from environmental and other organisations which maintain that the integrated tourist complex:

will contribute to further reducing primary production since, by occupying 700 hectares, the complex will greatly reduce the area under cultivation, thereby undermining the local economy,

will sabotage efforts made to date to develop small agricultural and ecological tourist ventures in harmony with the nature of the area as a whole and its historical and archaeological heritage, together with the environment and preservation of the ecological balance,

will seriously deplete ground-water resources since sprinklers for the golf courses alone will require vast quantities of water in an area where there is already a shortage of ground water suitable for human consumption.

In addition, they point out that the wetland biotope around the Divari Gialovas lagoon, situated between two of the hotel complexes under construction, forms part of the Natura 2000 project (No 2550004/6/955).

Can the Commission give its assurance that, as a financial backer of the project, it will make representa- tions to the relevant Greek authorities to ensure that, on the one hand nothing is done to undermine the conservation of the area and, in particular, the lagoon and the river Sellas river ecosystem and that on the other, arrangements will be agreed upon concerning the sustainable and balanced socio-economic administration and development of the area?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Gialova lagoon is included in the list of sites of Community importance proposed by Greece, by virtue of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), for the Natura 2000 network. Actions for the conservation of that site are currently underway there in the framework of a LIFE-Nature project, addressing the aquatic ecosystem of the lagoon.

In that context, the beneficiary of the project (Hellenic Ornithological Society) has undertaken contacts with the Greek authorities in order to ensure that the tourist developments in question, although located outside the Natura 2000 site, will not compromise the conservation efforts and the natural value of the site as a whole.

The Commission, promoting the idea of a sustainable tourism, especially when Community funding is involved related to such areas of high conservation value, will also contact the Greek authorities in order to obtain concrete information on the matter.

The Honourable Member will be kept informed thereof.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. C 225 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2374/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Implementation of programme for tourism under the CSF for Greece

What progress has been made in implementing the subprogramme for tourism forming part of the operational programme for tourism and culture within the Community support framework for Greece (take-up, any delays, cuts, etc.)?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Financial implementation of the ‘Tourism and culture’ operational programme (OP) of the Community support framework for Greece for the 19941999 programming period improved appreciably during 1999, mainly thanks to an amendment to its contents and to reallocation of Community aid between the two subprogrammes on ‘tourism’ and ‘culture’. The new detailed financing plans will be annexed to the Commission Decision which will be signed soon.

This amendment will result in a reduction in the overall budget for this OP of about 34 %, to EUR 520,1 million.

Community aid will be increased by EUR 5,9 million (2,6 %), (a reduction of EUR 16 million for tourism and an increase of EUR 21,9 million for culture).

The absorption rate on the ground currently stands at 59,1 % (EUR 307,7 million). The various adjustments listed above make it likely that all the commitment appropriations will be used.

(2000/C 225 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2377/99 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Tied aid

Following the measures taken by the Netherlands and British Ministers for Development with a view to the untying of aid from their development budgets and promoting local industry, could the Commission clarify what steps it has take to support private sector capacities in developing countries by increasing the access of local firms to aid contracts, thereby promoting exposure of the local private sector to international competition?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

The Community’s policy has always been based on a wide participation of bidders from the beneficiary and Member States in aid contracts. Special efforts were undertaken, successfully, aiming to increase such participation. The future partnership agreement between the Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries will continue to represent a highly untied aid agreement, open to all signatories of the Convention and containing dispositions for preferential treatment of ACP companies in the competition for aid contracts. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/119

More generally, in order to improve the private sector competitiveness in developing countries, the Commission has introduced a new strategy of support to private sector development in 1998. This strategy is based on the comprehensive approach aiming to improve the business environment, the local, financial and private sector, institutions and the capacities of individual companies (1).

For the implementation of its strategy the Commission provides a number of supporting facilities to ACP countries. For the analysis of the business climate in the ACP countries the programme Diagnos is introduced to help design a country or region-level strategy with emphasis on the determination of reform policies, but also including support at intermediary and micro levels. A demand-driven, cost-sharing facility, the Community- ACP business assistance scheme (EBAS) aims at increasing competitiveness of ACP enterprises and strengthening the capacity of private sector and non-financial intermediaries. To foster inward investment and economic co-operation, the programme Proinvest (under preparation), will aim at encouraging continuity and sustainability in investment and partnership promotion as a catalyst for business-to-business co-operation. Moreover, each country or region may in addition have included allocations for private sector development in the national or regional indicative programmes.

The Commission’s support to the private sector runs in collaboration and co-ordination with the instruments provided by the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the ACP-EC Centre for the development of industry (CDI). Both institutions will have an enlarged mandate under the post LOME convention that is currently under negotiation. Co-ordination is sought with other donors, in particular with Member States, in implementing the strategy.

Finally, it should be kept in mind, that the difference between Member States aid and the Commission’s aid on this point is, that Community aid is tendered in all 15 Member States (in addition to what is mentioned above).

(1) COM(98) 667 final.

(2000/C 225 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2383/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Regulation on exclusive purchasing obligations

A new European regulation seeks to make exclusive purchasing obligations impossible for products and services if the suppliers in question have a market share greater than 30 %. However, the proposed regulation threatens to make exclusivity contracts the norm. Very few suppliers have a market share in excess of 30 %. For example, owners of cafés and public houses would be tied to one supplier not only for drinks but also for all other goods and services which they need.

1. What were the economic arguments for the abovementioned draft regulation? What persuaded the Commission to draft this regulation?

2. Does the Commission have a (detailed) breakdown of exclusive purchasing obligations in the fifteen Member States? If so, what contracts and what (percentage) shares of the market are involved? If not, does not the regulation risk producing the opposite effect in view of the 30 % threshold that is applied? C 225 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

The Honourable Member’s question refers to the draft block exemption regulation the Commission has published, together with draft guidelines (1). These draft texts are the final step in the review and reform of Community competition policy towards vertical agreements.

The first step was the publication of a green paper (2), followed by a consultation of all interested parties, and the publication of a communication by the Commission (3). In these documents the reasons for the review and reform are amply described.

In short, the future policy that is proposed signifies a shift to a more economic approach. This is widely supported and is made necessary by a number of structural weaknesses in the current block exemption regulations, including that covering certain of the beer delivery contracts. The three existing block exemption regulations concerning exclusive distribution, exclusive purchasing and franchising agreements have been widely criticised in recent years for being too narrow in scope, over formalistic in their approach and for imposing on industry a strait-jacket incompatible with the evolution of production and distribution methods. In addition, in cases where companies have market power, vertical restraints can be used for pro-competitive purposes as well as anti-competitive purposes, for example to foreclose the market.

The proposed new policy will considerably simplify the rules applicable to vertical restraints and reduce the regulatory burden, as it will enable companies which lack significant market power (and most companies lack significant market power) to benefit from a safe harbour within which it will be no longer necessary for them to assess the validity of their agreements under the Community competition rules. In accordance with this new approach, the proposed block exemption regulation covers, up to a market share threshold proposed to be set at 30 %, all vertical restraints concerning both intermediate and final goods, as well as services, except for a limited number of hardcore restraints and conditions. For example, in relation to the beer delivery contracts the Honourable Member mentions, it is in general not to be expected that a brewer with a market share below 30 % will be able, on its own, to foreclose the market to its competitors by imposing a non-compete obligation on the pubs it is supplying.

Companies with market shares above the 30 % threshold will not benefit from the safe harbour. However, their vertical agreements will not be presumed illegal but may require an individual examination under Article 81 (ex Article 85) EC Treaty. The accompanying guidelines are designed to assist undertakings in carrying out such an examination and thus to increase the effectiveness of the competition rules.

As regards non-compete obligations, it is not feasible to have an overview of all such obligations in the Community as this would concern thousands of agreements in many sectors. However, the Commission does not fear nor expect that non-compete obligations will become the norm for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the new block exemption provides for a reduction of the exempted duration of non-compete obligations to 5 years, while under the current regime, in certain sectors like the beer sector, distributors can be tied up to 10 years or even indefinitely. This will give distributors the power to put pressure on their suppliers by threatening to change supplier, which is more efficient than regulating in detail the rights and obligations of the contracting parties.

Secondly, as said above, unlike the current regulations, the future block exemption will not cover undertakings with market shares exceeding 30 %.

Thirdly, the proposed regulation covers for the first time associations of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) retailers, which should enable such SMEs to strengthen their position vis-à-vis their suppliers and better compete with large integrated distribution groups. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/121

Fourthly, the new legal framework also provides for a withdrawal mechanism that will enable the competition authorities to intervene even below the 30 % market share threshold, if vertical restraints lead to an anti-competitive outcome.

The Commission’s aim is to establish a competition policy genuinely based on economic criteria and focused on the analysis of the effects of vertical agreements on the market. The Commission does not want to regulate, through the Community competition rules, the contractual relations between the parties for the purposes of re-equilibrating their respective bargaining positions. The antitrust rules are there to protect competition and to ensure that vertical restraints do not lead to an anti-competitive outcome in the markets, in particular where suppliers have significant market power. The new policy will also benefit SMEs.

(1) OJ C 270, 24.9.1999. (2) Green paper on vertical restraints in EC competition policy, COM(96) 721 final. (3) Communication on the application of the EC competition rules to vertical restraints, (COM(98) 544).

(2000/C 225 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2388/99 by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Banana import arrangements

The proposal adopted by the Commission at its meeting of 10 November 1999 on the new import arrangements for bananas poses a substantial threat to the continued production of bananas in the EU, owing in particular to the probable substantial change in marketing channels. This change may seriously hinder the marketing of Community bananas and the risk is that no aid system may be able to compensate producers.

Because of this and the fact that a senior Commission official stated that the new arrangements would not adversely affect Community bananas, can the Commission say how it intends to safeguard the interests of banana producers in Madeira under the new arrangements?

Furthermore, assuming that the marketing of Community bananas is guaranteed and bearing in mind the budgetary commitments made in Agenda 2000, how will the additional cost of the system of aid to Community producers (‘deficiency payments’) be funded following the increased supply of bananas and the consequent fall in prices?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The proposal adopted by the Commission on 10 November 1999 (1) aims to meet the Community’s obligations to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), while taking into account the essential concerns of the Community and the banana producers in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States and the need to comply with the strict limits of the Community budget.

It is based on a tariff-only system which would enter into force not later than 1 January 2006 following a transitional period during which a system of tariff quotas would apply, together with a tariff preference which would be sufficient to maintain access for ACP produce.

The Commission considers that support for Community producers is guaranteed by the present system of compensatory aid calculated on the basis of the difference between the flat-rate reference income which was increased by 5 % in 1998 and by 3 % in 1999 and the average prices obtained during the banana marketing year. This system ensures that Community production is marketed, by providing full compensation no matter how prices move on the Community market during this period. C 225 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

The Commission’s proposal is accompanied by a financial statement. The proposal is expected to entail an increase in expenditure of EUR 77 million and an increase in income of EUR 30 million. The impact on the budget of applying a tariff-only system is not quantifiable at this stage.

(1) SEC(1999) 1820 final.

(2000/C 225 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2391/99 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Irregularities in the construction of the Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona high speed train link

Two senior members of staff of the Railway Investment Management Body (GIF) which comes under the Spanish Government’s Ministry of Public Works. Have recently been dismissed after giving contracts worth 5 billion pesetas to companies with which they have shareholding links for construction work on the Madrid-Barcelona-Zaragoza high-speed train link.

Given that the EU’s Cohesion Fund is co-funding this construction work is the Commission aware of these irregularities and if so, does it believe that they should be investigated by the Community authorities?

Does the Commission believe that these facts could delay the high-speed train link or endanger its EU co- funding? Has the Commission asked the Spanish Government for clarification, and if so, will it do so?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission is aware of the resignation of two members of the staff of the GIF (the body managing railway infrastructure) and of the opening of an administrative inquiry.

This inquiry, conducted by the Spanish Ministry of Transport (‘Fomento’), was intended to establish whether there was a link between these members of staff and the two companies awarded contracts for construction work on the high-speed railway line from Madrid to Barcelona and the French border and whether those companies received preferential treatment. The Minister responsible recently presented the results of the inquiry to the Spanish Parliament.

The contracts in question are not receiving part-financing from the Cohesion Fund but form part of two groups of projects for which the Spanish authorities have applied for part-financing. This application is currently being considered.

The Commission is awaiting the results of the inquiry carried out by the Spanish authorities before deciding what measures to take.

(2000/C 225 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2392/99 by Jean-Claude Martinez (TDI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Lethal flooding in the south of France

networks. Is the Commission prepared immediately to set in motion the budgetary procedure aimed at getting emergency financial aid to the victims of natural disasters? Does it intend to draw this aid from the 1999 budget so as to enable the first of these payments to be made before the end of the year, as was the case with Turkey which received 180 million euros (or more than one billion francs) for the financial year 1999 following the earthquake on 17 August?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The Commission immediately expressed its great concern about the floods in the south of France in November 1999.

It would, however, remind the Honourable Member that for several years there has been no special heading in the Community budget to provide emergency aid for natural disasters in the Member States.

The Commission informed the French authorities that, under the next programming period for regional and cohesion policy (2000-2006), it could contribute to repairs to infrastructure and eligible equipment in the disaster areas, provided those areas were eligible under the Structural Funds (new Objective 2 or transitional arrangements for Objectives 2 or 5(b)). Further assistance for agricultural structures could also be provided from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

(2000/C 225 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2393/99 by Jean-Claude Martinez (TDI) to the Council

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Lethal flooding in the south of France

In November 1999, torrential rain, floods, landslides and broken material swept through four southern French départements, Aude, Hérault, Tarn and the Pyrénées Orientales, causing widespread devastation and more than 30 deaths, destroying roads, railway lines and all public electricity, water and telephone networks. Is the Council prepared immediately to set in motion the budgetary procedure aimed at getting emergency financial aid to the victims of natural disasters? Does it intend to draw this aid from the 1999 budget so as to enable the first of these payments to be made before the end of the year, as was the case with Turkey which received 180 million euros (or more than one billion francs) for the financial year 1999 following the earthquake on 17 August?

(28 February 2000)

The Honourable Member asks whether the Council could open a budgetary procedure to release emergency aid appropriations for the victims of natural disasters in the south of France.

A heading entitled ‘Emergency aid to disaster victims in the Community’ appeared in the budget until the end of the 1997 financial year. As from the preliminary draft 1998 budget it ceased to be proposed because of criticism by the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, which argued that such aid should be granted at national level and not from the Community budget.

As a result, humanitarian aid appropriations in the general budget are solely for third countries. A procedure similar to the aid given to Turkey, which is a third country, cannot therefore be envisaged for France.

In any case, the responsibility for any initiative to commit appropriations allocated in the general budget by the budgetary authority rests with the Commission. It is therefore up to the Commission to see whether people and areas affected by natural disasters, such as that referred to in the question, can be helped by releasing appropriations from other chapters of the budget. C 225 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2395/99 by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Restriction on European Commission officials’ freedom of association

On 13 October 1999 the Commission approved a document, submitted by Commissioner Kinnock, which appears to impose a significant restriction on freedom of association within the institution, by introducing new and unjustified representativeness criteria for unions already officially recognised as dialogue partners.

According to leaks that have spread, these new criteria would result in records being kept of officials and unions they belong to.

Will Mr Prodi say if this is indeed the case and, if so, how he can explain the Commission’s approval of a step such as this which violates both freedom of association and the most basic right to confidentiality regarding the choices made by workers?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

The Commission has no intention of limiting the rights of association of staff or of trade unions and that fact has repeatedly been made plain.

No Honourable Member has to rely on ‘leaks’ or rumours. The full Commission proposal was published on 13 October and appears on the internet at http://www.cc.cec/home/admref/en/refdoc.html.

As stated in that Commission Proposal for a New Framework Agreement with the unions (Article 1): ‘The Commission confirms, in particular, its support for the general principles relating to the role and the responsibilities of the trade unions and staff associations with a view to involving them in the most transparent, democratic and effective way possible in the life of the institution and inter alia in the process of reform undertaken by the Commission’.

The Commission considers that the social dialogue is important for the conduct of good industrial relations and to ensure effective staff representation. The current system is, however, based on a 25-year- old Framework Agreement that no longer works in ways that meet needs in today’s Institution. Change is therefore sensible, necessary and in the professional interests of everyone.

The Honourable Member will be aware that the principle of ‘representativeness’ is applied in many Member States and other democracies in order to ensure that consultations and conclusions of agreements will be effective and undertaken on the basis that an organisation represents a significant proportion of the workforce.

The main objectives of the Commission proposals are to clarify the role of the Central Staff Committee and the unions in discussions with the administration and to put in place an effective structure for these discussions; to define clearly which type of issues can be the subject of discussions (‘concertations’) between the administration and the unions and what process should exist to deal with these issues; to ensure that in the discussions with unions due account is taken of their representativeness; and to ensure that the administration’s support for the different participants in the social dialogue (unions, staff committee) in terms of staff made available on secondment is commensurate with the role that they play in the dialogue.

There is absolutely no proposal to record the names of trade union members as a means of verifying representativeness. The reform proposal offered a ‘check-out’ system by which the number of members of a union could be verified and each union could show how many people it represents. As the proposal made clear, however, there would be no obligation upon Unions to use such a system. Alternatives could be used to provide accurate numerical information. Agreement upon an independent person or authority 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/125

for verification is one of the alternatives already under consideration by some trade unionists. The fact that trade union members themselves have an interest in knowing how many colleagues belong to their organisation is widely recognised.

No proposal made by the Commission would ‘violate’ freedom of association or any civil right to confidentiality. Allegations that any such proposal has been made are completely without foundation in fact.

(2000/C 225 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2401/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 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 infrastructure are eligible for co-financing. The question of the Iron Rhine is a matter which is particularly deserving of the Council’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 international rail link.

1. Does the Council 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 Council 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?

(28 February 2000)

The question raised by the Honourable Member is not within the Council’s competence.

(2000/C 225 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2403/99 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Proposed EUR 2 million cutback of the Poseima programme

On 9 November the Commission submitted its fourth Letter of Amendment to the 2000 Budget to Parliament, proposing to cut EUR 2 million from the Poseima programme, while proposing increases for the Poseidom and Poseican programmes. C 225 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Given the specific difficulties noted in the Treaty which ultraperipheral regions face, and the cost of insular status, above all as regards agricultural and fishery products:

what are the Commission’s reasons for proposing this fresh cutback in the Poseima programme, and

what are the mechanisms it is using to ensure that the programme’s appropriations are being fully taken up?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the amounts given under budget heading B1-321 (Poseima) are forecasts of the expenditure necessary for carrying out the measures required under that item the reduction in appropriations cannot, therefore, be construed as a cutback in the programme.

As regards the specific issues raised, the Commission would point out that the proposed reduction is due entirely to the fact that the forecasts are based on the actual extent (in percentage terms) to which the supply balances have been implemented in the last few years. The rate of take-up of the appropriations is dependant on how effectively and correctly the beneficiary areas themselves have implemented the supply balances, or any other of the measures provided for in the legislation.

It should also be noted that this item is exclusively concerned with agricultural products. Fishery products do benefit from the measures in the Poseima programme they are covered by other budget headings.

(2000/C 225 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2406/99 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Senior EURO Pass

Can the Commission provide information on the current status of its consideration of the introduction of a Senior EURO Pass or EURO Card for senior citizens which would grant a range of concessions (including transport) across the European Union following the study completed by AGE Concern with Commission support?

Is the Commission considering making proposals with a view to the introduction of such a scheme of concessions in the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1054/99 by Mrs Billingham (1), to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-1023/98 by Robert Evans during question time at Parliament’s November 1998 part-session (2) and to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-1148/98 by Niall Andrews during question time at Parliament’s December 1998 part-session (3).

The non-governmental organisation (NGO) members of the liaison group for older people have not come forward in support of the suggestions in the final report of the study, for example in the context of the preparation of the United Nations international year of older persons.

In this light, the Commission has no present intention to come forward with any proposals for a senior EURO pass or over sixties card.

(1) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999. (2) Debates of the European Parliament (November 1998). (3) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1998). 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/127

(2000/C 225 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2408/99 by Linda McAvan (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Reviews of the Animal Transport and the Pig Directives

It is my understanding that the European Commission is due to come forward with a review of the Animal Transport Directive as well as a long overdue review of the Pig Directive.

Could the Commission give me some indication of the stage it has reached in preparing substantial new proposals in these areas and when we can expect to see them.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Community legislation on the protection of animals during transport is drawn up on the basis of the results of scientific research and practical knowledge, both of which indicate that animal transport is feasible if specific animal protection conditions are met. Concerning future activities the Commission will work to consider a proposal on the basis of the specific opinion of the scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare, setting up standards for mechanical ventilation in vehicles transporting livestock. This proposal is foreseen for the beginning of 2000.

A working group of the standing veterinary committee has recently been established to consider particular problems of the enforcement of Council Directive 95/29/EC on the protection of animals during transport (1) in respect of long-distance transport operations including the import of horses from third countries. During the next year the Commission may consider putting forward proposals to amend current Community legislation on the basis of the conclusions of this working group.

Council Directive 91/630/EC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (2) provides for a report from the Commission on the keeping of pigs in intensive rearing systems with particular regard to the welfare of sows reared in varying degrees of confinement and in groups. The Commission asked the scientific veterinary committee on animal health and animal welfare to make such a report. The scientific committee adopted the report on 30 September 1997. A copy of the report is available on the Internet at the web site of the Health and consumer protection Directorate general. The draft Commission proposal will include in particular provisions for the keeping of sows in groups and establishing separate areas for the performing of their normal behaviour pattern. The Commission proposal will be submitted to the Council and the Parliament for approval during this year. The Commission will propose to apply these updated provisions as soon as possible on newly built farms. The application of the new requirements in existing systems is a matter of discussion between experts taking into consideration in particular the social-economic implications.

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

(2000/C 225 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2410/99 by Cristina Gutiérrez Cortines (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: The Interreg II Community Initiative: Spanish-Moroccan cooperation

Within the Interreg Community Initiative there is a Spanish-Moroccan cooperation programme which covers four areas, namely socio-economic development measures, cultural heritage and environmental measures, improving cross-border communications and management and monitoring of the programme itself.

Will the Commission provide details of each and every subsidy paid out in each of these four areas, stating the respective value of the sums paid out and to whom they were paid? C 225 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The aid granted under the Community initiative programme Interreg Spain-Morocco for the period 1994-1999 amounts to € 104,1 million.

The breakdown by subprogramme is as follows:

(in million euro)

Support for socioeconomic development 38,78 Cultural heritage and environment 10,85 Improvement of cross-border communications 54,40 Management and monitoring 0,07

Projects are managed by the following bodies: Administración Central; Junta de Andalucia; Ayuntamiento de Cádiz; Ayuntamiento de Málaga; Ciudad Autónoma de Ceuta; Ciudad Autónoma de Melilla; Mancomu- nidad de Municipios del Bajo Guadalquivir; Diputación Provincial de Málaga; Diputación Provincial de Cádiz; Red Eléctrica; Telefónica; Autoridad Portuaria de la Bahía de Cádiz; Autoridad Portuaria de la Bahía de Algeciras; Autoridad Portuaria de Ceuta; Autoridad Portuaria de Melilla.

Details of the projects part-financed by these four subprogrammes as well as the final recipients and the amounts which were granted to them can be obtained from the body responsible for chairing the monitoring committee, in this case the Spanish Ministry for Economic Affairs and Finance.

(2000/C 225 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2411/99

by Cristina Gutiérrez Cortines (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: The Murcia region and the ERDF

By Decision C(94) 2587 the Commission approved a global subsidy for modernising the production and marketing structures of companies working in the Murcia region, raising the region’s human resources standards and hence promoting the creation of long term employment.

Will the Commission provide full details of:

1. the subsidies and funding paid out to date pursuant to this Decision, and

2. a list of the recipients of these monies?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The global grant allotted to the region of Murcia by decision C(94) 2587, under the European Regional Development Fund for the current 1994-1999 programming period, amounts to € 76,16 million.

By 31 December 1998, the body responsible for managing the grant (‘Instituto de Fomento de la Región de Murcia’) had granted aid to 4 434 enterprises in the region for a total amount of € 62,02. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/129

The breakdown of aid by measure is as follows:

Number of enterprises Aid for the financing of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 2 192 Aid (Research and development) (R&D) 136 Internationalisation of the products of the region 1 172 Studies on adding value to the products of the region 136 Improvement of the competitiveness of enterprises 77 Local promotion associations 1

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

(2000/C 225 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2413/99 by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Competitive disadvantage and regional aid in Sweden

The population density is low in northern Sweden and Finland, about 3,4 per square kilometre in the former. Undertakings operating in these sparsely populated regions for export markets have to transport their products for much greater distances than do those located close to major centres of population and urban markets. Regional aid such as reduced social contributions and transport subsidies is an important factor in making such undertakings less uncompetitive.

Sweden and the Commission are at present negotiating the conditions for regional aid in Sweden. Why is the Commission unwilling to help Sweden grant such aid so that these undertakings can compete on equal terms?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission recognises that sparsely populated regions, such as North Sweden have special problems. It agrees that companies in these regions face particular handicaps due to the long distances to their markets. This is why the Commission decided in 1994, in anticipation of the accession of Sweden and Finland, to adopt special provisions favouring low population density regions (1). These special provisions were consolidated and further extended in the ‘Guidelines on national regional aid’ (2).

The guidelines contain a number of provisions to ensure that Member States can include their low population regions in the assisted area maps under Article 87(3)(c), if they so desire. They also enable the Commission to authorise higher aid intensity ceilings for large firms in low population density regions. Finally, the guidelines provide that Member States may grant transport aid to compensate for the additional transport costs incurred by companies located in low population density regions. At the same time, though, the guidelines also specify that transport aid may serve only to compensate for the additional cost of transport of goods and that there should never be over-compensation of the additional transport costs.

On 26 October 1999, the Commission authorised a transport aid scheme for the North of Sweden, under which Sweden will provide direct compensation for the additional cost of transport of goods incurred by companies located in that region. This should enable companies in North Sweden to compete on equal terms. C 225 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

On 22 October 1999, Sweden notified the reduced social contributions aid scheme for North Sweden. This scheme reduces the employers’ social contributions in North Sweden. Sweden justifies the reduction in the social contributions as a compensation for the additional ‘distance related costs’ of the companies concerned.

The Commission is now examining whether this second transport aid scheme is justified. In this context it has asked Sweden to demonstrate that the reduction of the employers’ social contributions does not over- compensate the additional transport costs incurred by the companies concerned. The Commission is awaiting a reply to this question from the Swedish authorities.

(1) Commission notice concerning an amendment to Part II of the communication on the method for the application of Article 92(3)(a) and (c) to regional aid, OJ C 364, 20.12.1994. (2) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

(2000/C 225 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2417/99

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: EU sponsorship for digitalising mediaeval manuscripts and incunabula

The University of Granada (Spain) has just published a CD ROM of the interactive multimedia digitalised version of the priceless Codex Granatensis, written by a Belgian monk in the 13th century and beautifully copied and illustrated by a German master c. 1425.

The beauties of this fragile volume, hitherto known only to a tiny number of specialists, are now accessible to anyone willing to part with 1 500 pesetas.

In view of the success of this experiment, would the Commission be prepared to sponsor a programme for making the treasures contained in mediaeval codices and incunabula available to the public in interactive multimedia form?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

The Honourable Member requested information about whether the Commission would be prepared to sponsor a programme for making mediaeval codices and incunabula available to the public in interactive multimedia form.

The Commission can only sponsor cultural initiatives as part of and in accordance with the criteria of its existing programmes. In this context, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that a call for proposals relating to the ‘Culture 2000’ first framework programme will be launched at the beginning of this year. Once it has been officially adopted, it will be published in the Official Journal and on the Internet. The Commission remains at the Honourable Member’s disposal, should he require further information. An explanatory document on the ‘Culture 2000’ framework programme has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat.

In addition to the ‘Culture 2000’ programme, access to Europe’s cultural heritage in multimedia form is also included in the IST (Information Society Technologies) programme of the European Union’s Fifth RTD Framework Programme. In the Key Action ‘Multimedia Content and Tools’, the work programme for 2000 provides for support for research projects aiming to improve access to scientific and cultural collections. Detailed information on the IST programme and the relevant calls for proposals can be found on the Cordis website (www.cordis.lu/ist/). 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/131

(2000/C 225 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2421/99 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: New directive on honey that penalises beekeepers

The Commission is preparing to adopt a new directive on honey to replace Regulation No 74/409 (1). As drafted, this directive would seriously penalise those working in the sector.

Does the Commission not consider it should postpone adoption of the provision so that it can examine more thoroughly the justifiable demands made by Italian and European beekeepers, which focus in particular on:

1. reconsidering the production of honey as an agricultural activity and not yielding to the lobbying of the preserved food industry, which as always is concerned with reducing the product’s quality specifications and making the compulsory wording on the label obscure;

2. recognising individual countries’ rights to safeguard the definition of honey as a product obtained exclusively from flower nectar and to prevent honey and mixtures from outside the Community coming onto the European market, as often happens with the complicity of Member States?

(1) OJ L 221, 12.8.1974, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2000)

In 1996 the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive (1) designed to simplify and replace Council Directive 74/409/EEC of 22 July 1974 on honey (2). When drafting the proposal and in the discussions that followed, the Commission took account in accordance with the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council of the Community interests of all parties concerned.

1. The proposal for a Directive on honey defines honey and lays down certain compositional criteria which all Community and non-Community honey must meet in order to be marketed under the name of honey.

2. It would therefore be against the rules governing Community and international trade to oppose the import of honey from outside the Community when the product complies with the rules laid down in the Directive on honey. However, after Parliament delivered its opinion in May 1999, the Commission decided to amend its proposal to make it compulsory to indicate the country of origin of non-Community honey on the label. At the Council meetings, some Member States raised the question of the labelling of mixtures of Community and non-Community honey. However, this question has not yet been resolved.

(1) OJ C 378, 13.12.1996. (2) OJ L 221, 12.8.1974.

(2000/C 225 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2428/99 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Exemption of horses used in competitions and sport from rules on veterinary medicine

Horses are classified in the European Union as meat production animals which are not permitted to be dosed with certain medicines in the interest of meat quality. The recent food scandals have put the authorities on their guard, and the regulations on medication have to be complied with even if the animal’s meat is not in practice intended for human consumption. C 225 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

In Finland, horses are primarily competition and sports animals. Less than half of all horses are slaughtered and, of those, only a fraction are used in the foodstuffs industry. That is why it is really important for competition and sports horses to be excluded from the rules on veterinary medicine.

The Commission clearly agrees with me and has made a proposal to that effect to the Council. Nevertheless, there seem to be delays in dealing with it.

1. What is the Commission’s proposed timetable for placing competition and sports horses in a different category from those horses classified as production animals?

2. If there should be further delays in dealing with the Commission’s proposals, what action can be taken now to ensure that competition and sports horses can be treated, given that no maximum residue limit (MRL) values have yet been set for the medicine required?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

Following a favourable opinion by qualified majority at the meeting of a joint zootechnical and veterinary standing committee on 8 December 1999 the Commission adopted a Decision establishing the identification document (passport) accompanying registered equidae for breeding and production (1) based on Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (2) and Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 june 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae (2).

The identification document foreseen for equidae for breeding and production uses part of the information provided in the internationally recognized passport for registered equidae, established by Decision 93/623/ EEC (3). A special section to be added to the identification document accompanying registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production provides for marking of equidae which are not intended for slaughter for human consumption and of those which are intended for slaughter under the condition that treatment with medicines containing substances not included in Annex I, II or III of Council Regulation (EEC) No 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 (4), is recorded and a general withdrawal period of six months is observed.

With effect from 1 January 2000 the administration to food-producing animals of medicinal products containing pharmacologically active substances which are not included in Annex I, II and III of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 is prohibited within the Community. Therefore, treatment of an equine animal with substances not included in these annexes can only be applied or prescribed after the vet has satisfied himself that the equine animal is properly marked in the new section of the identification document either as not intended for slaughter or as intended for slaughter under the above conditions.

When equidae are transported to the slaughterhouse, the identification document must be checked by the official vet at the slaughterhouse during ante-mortem inspection to verify the identity and to check the medication record in order to ascertain the completion of the required withdrawal period.

(1) (not yet published). (2) OJ L 296, 27.10.1990. (3) OJ L 298, 3.12.1993. (4) OJ L 87, 2.4.1992.

(2000/C 225 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2431/99 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Objective 2 in Lazio

The recent redesignation of areas eligible for Objective status and hence of the targets for European Union structural funding has triggered controversy in the region of Lazio, focused on the new award of such 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/133

status. In particular, the proposal by the Lazio regional authorities regarding Objective 2 does not appear to reflect adequately the development characteristics of the various areas concerned and therefore does not correspond to the Commission’s guidelines to the Member States in this connection.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Has it already intervened regarding the definition of eligible areas in Lazio and if so, in what way?

2. Has it expressed itself in favour of the proposal by Lazio regarding the redefinition of Objective status, and in particular of Objective 2?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

Following the Commission’s decision of 1 July 1999 setting, for each Member State, the maximum population eligible for Objective 2 assistance in 2000-2006, the national authorities were invited to send the Commission (at the latest by 31 August 1999) their proposed list of eligible areas within their territory. The Italian authorities sent their proposal on 1 October 1999.

On 11 October 1999, the Italian authorities were informed that their proposal was not acceptable as it did not comply with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) of 21 June 1999, 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.

The Commission therefore called on the Italian authorities to draw up a new proposal in compliance with the Regulation.

As soon as it receives the revised Italian proposal, the Commission will evaluate the eligibility of the Italian region of Lazio for Objective 2 assistance.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds: OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/99 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Reform of the banana sector with reference to the WTO panel

At the Council meeting of Agriculture Ministers on 15 November the Commission put forward a proposal for an amendment to the customs arrangements relating to the banana sector. The purpose of the proposal is to put an end to import quotas and to base the arrangements solely on customs duties with effect from 1 January 2006. This is an attempt to bring the banana regime into line with the WTO rules, in response to the criticisms expressed by the USA and the multinational companies which export from the ‘dollar banana’ area.

Has the Commission carried out any research into the impact which any change in the arrangements would have on Community producers, particularly in view of the fact that there is to be an automatic shift to a scheme based solely on customs duties (which could be reduced as a result of the WTO Millennium Round negotiations)? If such research has been carried out, what were the main findings thereof?

If Community producers suffer any losses, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to compensate them and to provide support for the sector and its future?

Has the Commission carried out any research into the impact which any change in the arrangements would have on ACP producers, particularly in view of the fact that there is to be an automatic shift to a scheme based solely on customs duties?

What action does the Commission intend to propose in terms of cooperation policy and the Community budget in order to compensate ACP producers for their losses? C 225 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2000)

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel decision did not call into question the Community aid scheme under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1858/93 of 9 July 1993 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the aid scheme to compensate for loss of income from marketing in the banana sector (1).

The Commission considers that support for Community producers is guaranteed by the current system of compensatory aid, under which the amount fixed for each marketing year corresponds to the difference between the flat-rate reference income (which was increased by 5 % in 1998 and up to 8 % from 1999) and the average prices obtained during the year in which the bananas were marketed. Through providing full compensation regardless of price trends on the Community market, the system thus ensures that Community production is sold. The mechanism’s effectiveness was confirmed during 1999, when banana prices on the world market slumped and compensatory aid enabled all Community production to be sold and producers’ income to be maintained.

The Commission takes the view that the compensatory aid scheme will absorb the impact, at production level, of the proposed changes.

The financial statement presented with the Commission proposal estimated that its budgetary impact would be to increase expenditure by € 77 million and revenue by € 30 million. The budgetary impact of applying a system based solely on tariffs cannot be quantified at this stage.

African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) producers are already covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 856/ 1999 of 22 April 1999 establishing a special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas (2).

The Commission will, in any event, assess whether this support (which has been proposed in the light of the previous changes to the common market organisation) will be sufficient to help traditional ACP suppliers retain their place in the Community market.

(1) OJ L 170, 13.7.1993. (2) OJ L 108, 27.4.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2437/99 by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Right of establishment in the EU for nationals of Central and Eastern Europe countries (CEECs) for the purposes of business or of providing services as self-employed persons

1. Has the Commission any knowledge of the number of nationals of Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) who have sought permission to establish themselves in the EU in the last two years in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Agreements between the CEE and the EU?

2. Has the Commission produced any guidance for nationals of Central and Eastern European countries seeking to establish themselves in accordance with these provisions?

3. Has the Commission produced any memoranda or advice notes for the national authorities of the Central and Eastern European countries concerning the right of establishment under these Agreements?

4. Has the Commission received any complaints from nationals of Central and Eastern European countries with regard to the exercise of the right of establishment under these Agreements? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/135

5. Is the Commission aware of any references made by national courts to the European Court of Justice of matters arising from the right of establishment under these Agreements?

6. Does the Commission intend to take any action in the near future to promote the exercise of the right of establishment under these agreements?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2000)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member touch upon the right of establishment for nationals of Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) in the Community for the purposes of business or providing services as self-employed persons.

1. The Commission has no data or estimates on the number of CEEC nationals who have sought to establish themselves in the last two years in the Member States.

2. and 3. The exercise of the right of establishment depends not only on the provisions of the Europe agreements, but also on national legislation. Therefore, it is not practical to produce any general guidance or advice for nationals of CEEC or Member States.

4. The Commission has received some complaints concerning delays in handling requests for the right of establishment. The complaints are addressed by the relevant national authority.

5. 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.

6. No special action is foreseen to promote the exercise of the right of establishment under the Europe agreements.

(2000/C 225 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2445/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Private inspection bodiesfor PDO and PGI products

Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 (1) on the certification of PDO and PGI products offered the Italian Government the option of accrediting only one private body for each designated product. This decision would appear to be detrimental to the fundamental rights of those farmers who meet the requirements laid down in the product specification, as they are obliged to accept both the prices and the inspection standards that the sole inspection body deems the most appropriate. Moreover, there have been reports of cases in which the private body, in agreement with the co-operative for the protection of designation of origin (‘consorzio di tutela’), allegedly adopted inspection procedures which were in direct breach of the rules contained in the official product specification registered with the Commission.

1. Can the Commission therefore state which institutions are responsible for verifying that the inspections carried out by private bodies comply with the rules laid down in the product specification?

2. Would it not be appropriate to leave the choice of private inspection firms to the free market, to enable individual producers and producers’ associations to seek directly the best economic and technological conditions for the certification of their products? C 225 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

3. Does it not consider that the selection of a single body for each product might be to the serious detriment of producers of PDO and PGI products, who are obliged to accept financial clauses and services with no other alternative and with no specific rules on the fixing of prices and the definition of certification procedures, which are currently at the total discretion of the sole approved private firm?

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

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

In the light of its replies to the Honourable Member’s written questions P-1845/99 (1) and P-2334/99 (2), the Commission confirms that 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 (3) stipulates that ‘an inspection structure may comprise one or more designated inspection authorities and/or private bodies approved for that purpose by the Member State’.

The Member State in which the geographical area covered by the protected designation of origin (PDO) or the protected geographical indication (PGI) is situated has the right to determine the inspection structures’ composition and number.

Article 10(4) of the Regulation stipulates that, if an inspection authority and/or private body establish that an agricultural product bearing a protected name of origin in that Member State does not meet the criteria of the specification, they must take the steps necessary to ensure compliance with the Regulation and inform the Member State of the measures taken in carrying out their inspections.

In any case, producers must have recourse to the inspection structure provided for in the specification.

Article 10 stipulates that private inspection bodies must fulfil the requirements laid down in standard EN 45011 (general criteria for certification bodies amended on 18 February 1998).

Member States are responsible for verifying that the inspection bodies chosen fully meet the requirements laid down by that standard.

(1) See page 27. (2) See page 105. (3) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.

(2000/C 225 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2456/99

by Sergio Berlato (UEN) and Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: New Holland Case

The Antitrust Committee chaired by Commissioner Mario Monti has approved the acquisition of the American group Case, market leader in the production of agricultural machinery, by the Fiat New Holland group.

The Commission, recognizing that the new group’s dominant position would be enhanced, has allegedly made the approval conditional on the group divesting itself of several product lines and plants situated in the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria and Italy. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/137

The plant in Breganze is the only one in Italy to manufacture combine harvesters and in the past its market performance has been characterised by high quality and reliability at competitive prices; but as a result of restructuring by the Fiat New Holland multinational, despite the plant’s profitability and its new premises, 1 000 jobs have been shed there over the past ten years.

Can the Commission say whether:

the disinvestment required by the Antitrust Committee as an indispensable condition should be interpreted as the sale of the plants to competitors?

the competition has already been identified and whether the Commission has the duty or power to control future agreements?

the sale of the firms to rival concerns includes the transfer of their wealth and special features in terms of intellectual property, personnel, know-how and supply contracts?

moreover, specific machines known as maize harvesting bars were designed, researched and manufactured entirely in the Italian factory in Breganze; they are now being manufactured in Poland in a factory purchased by New Holland. Does the Commission not believe that the special production features of these machines, not to mention the combine harvesters, of which New Holland in Breganze is the sole Italian manufacturer, should be safeguarded?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

If the Commission in its assessment of a notified merger has serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market, the companies can submit undertakings in order to eliminate the identified competition concerns. These undertakings can enable the Commission to declare the concentration compatible with the common market, (Articles 6(1) b, 6(2) and 8(2) of Council Regulation no 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1), the merger Regulation).

In cases where the Commission clears the merger, subject to modifications, the Commission appoints, upon the parties’ suggestion, an independent trustee. The role of the trustee includes ensuring that the divestment assets are maintained pursuant to good business practice until the sale of the divestment assets and the taking effect of the agreements and that the divestments will effectively take place within specific deadlines.

In the merger case New Holland/Case, New Holland proposed in order to obtain the Commission’s clearance within six weeks, undertakings including the divestment of various ranges and brands of tractors, combine harvesters, Case large square balers and backhoe loaders. This implies the assignment of intellectual property rights, of assets and personnel used or engaged in the manufacture and/or research and development of the divested product as well as of supply contracts. Moreover, the undertakings contain an opening up of Case and/or New Holland’s dealer networks in the European Economic Area for all of the products divested.

In particular regarding combine harvesters, New Holland proposed to divest the Laverda non-hillside harvesters to a third party. This divestment includes the assignment of all intellectual property rights and know-how including the rights to the Laverda brand name in and to New Holland’s non-hillside Laverda combines and the assignment of all assets of the Laverda production plant at Breganze (Italy) and of personnel employed at the plant, as well as of supply contracts.

According to the decision of the Commission, New Holland is obliged to ensure that the divestments including the Laverda non-hillside harvesters, are maintained according to good business practices at their current level until they are sold to a third party.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, whole text republished in OJ L 257, 21.9.1990. C 225 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2459/99 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Raffaele Fitto (PPE-DE), Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE), Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) and Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Incompatibility between the role of President of the Commission and election campaigning activities

On 15 November 1999 the Italian newspaper ‘Il Messaggero’ published an article stating that the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, had personally taken part in the election campaign to support a certain Mr Parisi, who is standing in the parliamentary elections for the 12th constituency (Bologna), which are set to take place on 28 November.

Should this information be confirmed, does the President of the Commission not consider that this kind of behaviour is in breach of the Treaty on European Union, and in particular of Article 213(2) (ex Article 157), according to which: ‘the Members of the Commission shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties. In the performance of these duties, they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. Each Member State undertakes to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the Members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks’?

(2000/C 225 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2600/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Participation by Commissioners in direct political action by the parties or electoral coalitions to which they belong

In the past, Commissioners such as Neil Kinnock, Jacques Delors and Emma Bonino have played an active role, while in office, in election campaigns and other political activities organised by the political parties to which they belonged. On 26 November 1999 Romano Prodi, president of the Commission, took part in the closing rally of Arturo Parisi’s election campaign in Bologna, appearing on the dais and in effect declaring his support for the candidate, as reported by the Italian press agencies Ansa, And Kronos, Dire and Agi and on 27 November 1999 by various newspapers, starting with Resto del Carlino, which is published in Bologna and distributed throughout the Emilia and Romagna regions.

Could the Commission state whether it considers that Commissioners should refrain, while in office, from taking part in direct political action and electoral campaigns organised by their own parties or electoral coalitions? Does it also agree that, by refraining from participating in direct political action organised by the parties to which they belong, Members of the Commission would uphold their role as representatives of all the citizens of the European Union?

(2000/C 225 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2628/99 by Francesco Speroni (TDI), Umberto Bossi (TDI) and Gian Gobbo (TDI) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Participation of the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, in the Italian election campaign

On Friday, 26 November 1999, the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, participated in the final meeting of the election campaign of the Olive Tree (centre-left) candidate for the Chamber of Deputies by- election. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/139

Other well-known members of the Italian coalition government, such as the Secretary of the Democratic Left, Walter Veltroni, also took part in what was a political event forming part of an election campaign during which Mr Prodi made statements supporting the Olive Tree candidate, Mr Parisi.

1. Does the Commission not believe that the participation of its members (and particularly its President, Mr Prodi) in events which are clearly part of an election campaign, as in the above case, is inappropriate?

2. Does it not consider this conduct to be in breach of the letter and the spirit of Article 213(2) of the Amsterdam Treaty, which stipulates that ‘the Members of the Commission shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties’?

3. Does Mr Prodi plan to participate in future election meetings of this kind in Italy, maybe of the other two coalitions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2459/99, E-2600/99 and E-2628/99 given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

As the Commission has had frequent occasion to recall in reply to written and oral questions by Members of Parliament (1), the Members of the Commission are politicians carrying out a political function, who, while honouring the obligations imposed by this function, remain free to express their personal opinions quite independently and on their own responsibility.

(1) The Honourable Members are referred in particular to the answer by Mr Rey to Oral Question No 10/68 by Mr Habib-Deloncle, and Commission answers to Written Questions No 44/83 by Mr Gendebien OJ C 197, 25.7.1983, No 1682/85 by Mr Vandemeulebroucke OJ C 55, 10.3.1986, E-1404/97 by Mr Pasty OJ C 391, 23.12.1997 and E-2617/98 by Mr Wibe OJ C 96, 8.4.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2468/99 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Transposition of Directive 91/174/EEC

In 1997, the Austrian commercial beekeepers’ association lodged a complaint with the Commission regarding failure to transpose Directive 91/174/EEC (1).

Has the Commission instituted inquiries in this connection?

Has Austria given an opinion on the matter?

Has the Commission completed its inquiries?

What is the outcome of the inquiries?

(1) OJ L 85, 5.4.1991, p. 37.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2000)

The Commission has in fact received a complaint from the Österreichischer Imkerbund denouncing the fact that the regional authorities of Lower Austria, Carinthia and Styria have banned the keeping of Buckfast bees and challenging the compatibility of these measures with Council Directive 91/174/EEC of 25 March 1991 laying down zootechnical and pedigree requirements for the marketing of pure-bred animals and amending Directive 77/504/EEC and 90/245/EEC. C 225 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

As regards this Directive, the Commission can confirm that an infringement procedure pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty was mounted against Austria for failure to communicate transposition measures. This procedure has since been closed, after notification of the measures in question.

However, it should be noted that the Court of Justice, in Case C-67/97 on the keeping of a non-indigenous species of bee on the island of Læsø (DK), found that since no implementing measure had been adopted in the bee sector Directive 91/174/EC was not applicable and so the existing national law remained applicable, with due regard to Articles 28 and 30 (ex Articles 30 and 36) of the EC Treaty. In this judgment the Court ruled that a legislative measure prohibiting the keeping on an island such as Læsø of any species of bee other than the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera must be regarded as justified, under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 36), with a view to protecting the health and life of animals. The Commission considers that this case law might, under certain conditions, also apply to other territories larger than the island of Læsø.

An examination is now under way to determine whether the requirements for restricting the keeping of certain species of bees in the Austrian regions concerned have been met.

(2000/C 225 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2469/99 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Reply to Question E-1056/99

In its answer to Written Question E-1056/99 (1) of 20 April 1999, the Commission stated that it had asked the Austrian authorities for information on the type of insurance services, the items covered and existing insurance contracts.

Has the Commission received this information?

Do Council Directive 92/50/EEC (2) relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and

Council Directive 93/37/EEC (3) concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts apply here?

What is the outcome with regard to my Written Question of 20 April 1999?

(1) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999. (2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1. (3) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The insurance services addressed by the Honourable Member concern ‘house insurance’ for buildings in the property of the municipality, that are concluded by the town of Vienna with insurance agencies for the property in possession of the town of Vienna.

As already announced in the Commission’s answer to the question of the Honourable Member E-1056/ 99 (1), the Austrian authorities were requested to provide further information concerning the nature of the contract, the threshold of the contract and the duration of the contract. On the basis of the information provided, the Commission found that the town of Vienna concluded 1850 house insurance contracts with a duration of 10 years. All but 100 contracts will expire in the year 2001. The insurances concluded by the town of Vienna can be qualified as services in the meaning of Annexe I A Category 6 (financial services) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts. The obligation to publish if the threshold is met exists only for those contracts signed after the accession of Austria to the Community. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/141

During a meeting between the Commission and the Austrian authorities on 3 December 1999, the municipality of Vienna declared that it will publish all the contracts as of 2001.

(1) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 149.

(2000/C 225 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2473/99 by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Problems of Air Traffic Control

Would the Commission agree that any increase in the average time of flight delays being experienced by airlines and passengers because of ATC restrictions is totally unacceptable?

Furthermore, would it agree that this is principally the fault of the Member States who have failed to invest adequately in a modern ATC system, failed to produce a single ATC area covering the EU, failed to agree a common EU capacity plan and, as a result, are failing the travelling public?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

On 1 December 1999, the Commission adopted a communication on the current situation of air traffic delays and on new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management system it needs to ensure the proper functioning of its internal market (1).

The Commission has made a broad analysis of the causes of air traffic delays and their trend during last years. Several factors contribute to the situation of chronic congestion. The main factor is air traffic control restrictions as cited by the Honourable Member. It is also widely recognised that the present level of delays is not sustainable for passengers and airlines and it also may endanger the achievement of Community objectives, in particular in the field of air transport policy.

The question raised by the Honourable Member, regarding the failure of Member States to provide the Community sky with a single air traffic control system and the urgent need for remedial actions, is answered in this document which has been communicated to the Council and the Parliament.

(1) COM(1999) 614 final.

(2000/C 225 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2475/99 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Dioxin emission levels of incinerators in the EU

Numerous urban waste incinerators in the Member States are still producing dioxin and furan emissions at levels exceeding the EU’s recommended threshold. According to the first Spanish survey of emissions of those substances, recently made public by the Spanish Higher Scientific Research Council, certain incinerators have been registering emissions as high as 1,08 nanograms per cubic metre, while the EU’s recommended threshold is 0,1 nanogram per cubic metre. C 225 E/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

It cannot be claimed at present that all Member State governments are rushing to implement the Seveso directive: many waste incinerators are still emitting over the Union’s recommended threshold.

The Commission has said that it intends to adopt, by the end of the year, a new directive on the criteria for all types of incinerator, which will lay down extremely rigorous conditions for emission thresholds for key pollutants. The threat to public health represented by excessive dioxin and furan emissions has, moreover, been the subject of numerous WHO warnings.

Does the Commission intend to approach the governments concerned to urge them to ensure compliance, throughout their territory, with the EU recommendations on dioxin and furan emissions from solid waste incinerators, and to press, accordingly, for the Seveso provisions to be implemented without further delay?

What mechanisms or aids has the Commission instituted to ensure that incinerators operating within the Community observe the emission thresholds recommended by the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

There are currently three pieces of legislation aimed at limiting emissions from incineration plants. Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 (1) covers the incineration of most hazardous waste and Council Directives 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants (2) and 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste-incineration plant (3) cover the incineration of municipal waste. In future, all three pieces of legislation will be repealed and replaced by a single directive, which sets an emission limit value for dioxins of 0,1 nanogram toxicity equivalents per cubic meter. Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards including dangerous substances (4), the so-called Seveso Directive, seeks in principle to reduce the possibility of major accidents in industrial installations and does not provide for emission limits.

The Council adopted a common position on the proposal for a directive on incineration on 25 November 1999. The final adoption is expected for autumn 2000. The proposed emission limit value for dioxin will become applicable to existing plants five years after the adoption of the directive, that is to say probably in autumn 2005.

After the transition period has expired, the Commission will apply all means foreseen in the EC Treaty to enforce the implementation and correct application of the directive.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. (2) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989. (3) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989. (4) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.

(2000/C 225 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2477/99

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: LIFE project

The LIFE Natura programme has given funds to the project to clean up Lake Alserio in the province of Como. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/143

Local environmental organisations maintain that:

1. the documents submitted to DG XI for the approval of the project do not reflect the true facts in the area concerned and that the accompanying maps are not in fact up to date;

2. environmentally valuable areas have in the meantime been excluded from the areas coming within the Regional Park of the Lambro Valley in which Lake Alserio is situated and subject to environmental restrictions;

3. the Trust administering the Regional Park of the Lambro Valley, which is one of the beneficiaries of the funds, ought to be replaced by government officials.

Does the Commission intend:

(a) to check that the documents submitted tally with the actual situation in the area in which the measures are to be carried out?

(b) to freeze the funds granted by LIFE Natura 1999 to the project to clean up Lake Alserio pending such a check?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The LIFE-Nature project ‘Actions of environmental restoration of Alserio Lake’ financed in 1999 targets the conservation of the site of Community importance ‘Lago di Alserio’ code IT2020005 (515 hectares of surface area) proposed under article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

The Commission has verified that the boundaries of the project area do fall within those of the ‘Lago di Alserio’ and thus comply with the criteria set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 of 15 July 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (Life) (2).

The Commission is aware that parts of the site of Community importance have not been included in the nature reserve, and would thus not be covered by the management plan of the reserve. Nevertheless, to guarantee a coherent approach the project includes the preparation of a management plan for the entire site of Community importance. This plan will be formally adopted by the authorities before the project ends.

The Commission has also no reason to doubt the other elements of information in the project proposal. The project was carefully evaluated and revised before the final decision. The Commission does not therefore consider it necessary to investigate the matter further or to freeze co-financing granted.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) OJ L 181, 20.7.1996.

(2000/C 225 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2478/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: ‘Clinic Clowns’: projects to provide psychological help for seriously ill children

Over the last ten years projects, usually called ‘Clinic Clowns’ and aiming to provide psychological and moral support for seriously ill children and adolescents, have been successfully carried out in various Member States of the European Union such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Austria. By placing the emphasis on humour, people including medical and non-medical staff give patients psychological and moral support in addition to the treatment provided by medical experts. C 225 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Organising and carrying out these admirable projects, which involve hospitals, universities, doctors, psychologists, entertainers and voluntary workers, is very costly. It has been proved that from the medical point of view too it is useful for patients, especially children and adolescents, to receive psychological and moral support.

Can the Commission state:

1. Whether it has already provided funding for this type of project, which is usually called ‘Clinic Clowns’?

2. Does it intend to earmark funds for European projects for the development of deserving projects of this kind in all Member States of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

1. No, the Commission is not funding any ‘Clinic Clowns’ project under its public health programmes.

2. In accordance with the provisions of European Parliament and Council decisions concerning public health programmes, calls for proposals are published annually in the Official Journal and it is at that stage that interested persons or organisations should indicate the projects for which they wish to apply under these programmes.

(2000/C 225 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2482/99 by Liam Hyland (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: EU’s response to the crisis in the pigmeat market

As the Commission will recall, prices for pigmeat in 1998 were severely hit by the combination of internal supply and world market trading conditions. Despite market support measures, they ended the year 40 % lower than the equivalent periods in 1996 and 1997. The Commission stated that the consensus view was that the mechanisms were deemed to be sufficient when effectively used.

Will the Commission now give its up-to-date assessment of the market in pigmeat for the EU as a whole as we approach the end of 1999 and, in particular, indicate its current assessment of the effectiveness of the mechanisms which it considered were sufficient to deal with the crisis?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2000)

It is regrettable that the pigmeat market has suffered since summer 1998. The main reason for the poor prices is the continuous oversupply of pigmeat. It is also true that for certain periods there were difficulties in export markets, but poor exports can hardly be blamed for poor pigmeat prices as exports have continuously increased. In 1997 exports of pigmeat increased by 13 %, in 1998 16 %, and in 1999 the increase is estimated to be more than 20 %.

Pig farmers all over Europe expanded their herds after exceptionally good years of 1996 and 1997, which resulted in record high production. Production increased in 1998 by 1,2 million tonnes or by 8 % reaching a total of 17,6 million tonnes. Production is expected to increase in 1999 by 2 % and to remain at a high level in 2000. Export markets cannot be expected to absorb this kind of supply increase, as the volume of the world market has traditionally been just over 3 million tonnes. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/145

The Commission has supported the pigmeat market quite actively from spring 1998 increasing export refunds, providing for aid for private storage and supplying pigmeat as food aid to Russia. The Commission is committed to support the market at difficult times to avoid extensive harm to the sector, but the pigmeat market is supposed to be self-regulating. The prices will affect supply and vice versa. The Commission has used export refunds extensively to support the market but, as the world markets are limited, there is a limit to the extent it is feasible to support exports. Also, World trade organisation (WTO) ceilings have to be taken into account in European export policy.

Since summer 1999 the prices improved considerably, but more recently the prices again have seen a seasonal low, as the supply tends to be very high in the last quarter of each year.

One should remember that in the pig sector there are seasonal trends as well as longer cycles, where prices adjust according to the supply and vice-versa. The pig farmers are aware that after good times there always come poor times and they should be prepared. Unfortunately, many have not been prepared.

The Commission has discussed other possible measures (e.g. to create voluntary based funds) with Member States on several occasions, but so far these ideas have received little support from the majority of Member States.

(2000/C 225 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2484/99

by Josu Ortuondo Larrea (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Information on the phasing-out of vessels using driftnets under Regulation 1239/98

Regulation (EC) 1239/98 (1) outlaws the use of driftnets in the Atlantic and Mediterranean tuna fisheries as from 1 January 2002. This Regulation states that the maximum number of vessels per Member State using driftnets may not exceed 60 % of the total so doing for the period 1995-1997.

In view of the incomplete nature of the information previously provided by it to other MEPs, can the Commission now supply a precise list, with the registration numbers of all the fishing vessels which have been in operation each year between 1995 and 1999, broken down by Member State? Can it also state whether the fishing vessels operating each year have been the same ones, with the same registration numbers, or whether there have been variations?

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

In conformity with Article 11 (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97, as modified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (1), Member States are obliged to notify, as from 1998, the list of vessels authorised to use driftnets. All Member States concerned have transmitted, pursuant to this provision, the lists of named vessels. As regards the years before 1998, there were no provisions included in Community legislation obliging Member States to submit lists of vessels nor to restrict access by requiring that vessels be authorised for using driftnets. Indeed, during that period, Community fishing vessels could freely engage in driftnet fishery. The Member States concerned have verified which of their vessels have used driftnets in the period 1995-1997 and, on request, communicated the total number of positively identified vessels to the Commission. C 225 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

As regards the years 1995, 1996 and 1997, the Commission has provided the figures concerning the total number of vessels in its reply to written questions P-1537/99 and E-1561/99 by Mrs Fraga Estevez (2). The named lists of vessels, with regard to 1998 and 1999, have been transmitted to the authorities responsible for fisheries control in the Member States concerned. Taking into account that this information relates to individual, natural or legal, persons, in accordance with Article 37 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/ 93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (3), the named lists cannot be published in detail as requested.

As from 1998, the vessels identified on the named lists communicated to the Commission are, with few exemptions, in both years the same vessels. On the basis of preliminary verifications by the Commission, it appears that, in the years 1995, 1996 and 1997, a number of vessels used driftnets, as to commence an opportunistic fishery on tuna. Some of these vessels seem to have abandoned this fishery already after one season or even after a few fishing trips.

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998. (2) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 33. (3) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.

(2000/C 225 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2487/99 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Participation by the Directorate-General for Social Affairs in public procurement policy

What contribution is the Directorate-General for Social Affairs making in the drafting on the forthcoming Commission Communiciation on Public Procurement and Social Aspects?

Bearing in mind the law enacted by the City of Madrid favouring public procurement from companies with a good record of employing people with disabilities and the complaint to the Commission against this law made by the builders’ organisation, CNC, will the Commission ensure that the Communication makes explicit that such affirmative action by local government is both legal and to be encouraged?

What account is the Commission taking in preparing the Communication of the provision of incentives to companies complying with good social, environmental labour and human rights standards in third countries, in line with the European Parliament’s resolution (A4-0508/98) (1) on EU standards for European enterprises operating in developing countries: towards a European Code of Conduct adopted on 15 January 1999?

(1) OJ C 104, 14.4.1999, p. 180.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Although the objectives of the Directives on public contracts are essentially economic in nature, there are various options for taking into account the pursuit of social objectives, in conformity with Community law on public contracts. The circumstances in which social criteria can be a factor in the award of public contracts have already been described in the Green Paper and the Commission’s communication on public procurement in the European Union (11 March 1998 (1)). In order to clarify the principles which apply to the pursuit of social objectives and the circumstances in which it can be taken into account, the Commission intends to draft an interpretative communication for adoption in the course of the year 2000.

As regards the draft decree of the Madrid Regional Government, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-185/99 by Mr Carnero González (2). It would, however, point out that it is difficult, under current law, to apply award criteria relating to the structure of the enterprise rather than the quality of the tender. There is, however, nothing to prevent the specifications from laying down conditions for implementation of the contract which take account of the extent to 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/147

which tenderers discharge their social obligations, as long as those conditions do not discriminate against tenderers from other Member States and there is adequate transparency (for example, by reference to the conditions in the invitation to tender or in the specifications). Moreover, the Directives on public contracts provide for candidates who have failed to live up to their social obligations or to observe social legislation to be excluded from award procedures.

In its present task of drawing up new financial regulations, the Commission intends to make it possible to exclude candidates who have failed to discharge their social obligations, or who have been involved in fraudulent or corrupt practices, from contracts awarded by the Commission or financed from the Community budget.

(1) COM(98) 143 final. (2) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2489/99

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Greek slaughter houses

Earlier this year Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) filmed inside four Greek slaughterhouses. In two sheep abbatoirs, no attempt at all was made to stun the animals before throat-cutting; this is in clear breach of Council Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. At a third Greek sheep abattoir, the animals were stunned, but so ineptly that a proportion of the animals were regaining consciousness either before or after throat-cutting. At this abattoir, a number of breaches of Council Directive 93/119/EC (1) were observed. Breaches of the Directive were also observed at a Greek pig abattoir. These breaches have all been reported by CIWF to the Commission.

What action does the Commission propose to take in respect of these breaches to ensure future compliance with Council Directive 93/119/EC in Greek slaughterhouses?

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

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

Veterinary experts from the Commissions food and veterinary office (FVO) have observed shortcomings in the stunning and killing of animals in slaughterhouses in Greece during missions carried out in November and December 1998. These reports are published on the web site of the Commission (http://europa.eu.int/ comm/dg24/health/vi/reports/index).

The Greek authorities have been asked by the Commission to take action to ensure that the requirements of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing (1) are respected. In answer, the Greek Ministry of Agriculture informed the Com- mission that ‘the Central veterinary service has taken all the necessary administrative measures and made the greatest efforts in enforcing legislation (Directives 91/628/EEC and 93/119/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (2))’.

The Greek Ministry of Agriculture has also scheduled a workshop for the Greek state veterinarians for February 2000 concerning animal welfare during transport and slaughter.

Another mission to Greece has been planned for the beginning of 2000 to verify the current situation concerning animal welfare. C 225 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

The Commission has furthermore recently received a number of complaints from animal welfare organisations alleging that the provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC are still being breached at a number of Greek slaughterhouses. The Commission takes the view that the complaints that it has received are, at least partially, corroborated by the missions mentioned above.

The Commission recently opened infringement proceedings against Greece in respect of breaches of the above-mentioned Directive.

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993. (2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2000/C 225 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2494/99 by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Protection of wild salmon stocks in the Tornionjoki (Torneälv) river

In 1996 the Finnish government issued an important fishing regulation on the protection of wild salmon stocks in the Baltic, which sought to protect the access of the salmon to their spawning grounds. The natural increase of salmon improved significantly for a time in the Tornionjoki (Torneälv) and Simojoki rivers. In 1998 restrictions on open sea fishing were relaxed and salmon catches in the Tornionjoki collapsed to half the previous year’s level.

The protection and reproduction of salmon stocks were affected not only by the relaxation of protection measures regarding sea fishing but also by the fact that exceptional licences needed to be obtained to catch whitefish in the sea area round the Tornionjoki estuary granted during the period of the ban on salmon fishing. A particularly large number of salmon heading upstream are caught in the nets intended for whitefish. Other major problems are the years of overfishing for salmon in sea areas, the problems of monitoring fisheries, and the differing points of view of the Finnish and Swedish fisheries authorities as regards fishing and protection measures.

The wild salmon in the Baltic Sea area is on the EU list of endangered species and the genetic diversity of wild salmon stocks has been reduced as a result of long-term overfishing. What concrete measures does the Commission propose to take to save the threatened wild salmon stocks in the Baltic? Is the Commission prepared to intervene to prevent illegal sea fishing if the Finnish Government does not do so?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2000)

The Commission has taken note of the positive signs for the Baltic salmon. In February 1997 the International Baltic Sea fisheries commission (IBSFC) adopted a salmon action plan (SAP). The objectives in this action plan are to achieve a natural production of at least 50 % of the potential capacity of all wild salmon rivers, to undertake habitat improvement and to re-establish salmon in potential salmon rivers. The plan has been complemented with national measures such as closed areas and time restrictions of fishing.

The International council for the exploration of sea (ICES) has confirmed that the management actions taken have resulted in a considerable increase in the numbers of wild salmon returning to home rivers. The higher numbers of wild salmon spawning in the rivers have resulted in increased production of wild smolt (juvenile salmon).

The same improvement has not been observed in all salmon rivers. However in the case of the Torneå river the increase has been very large and ICES reports that salmon occur in parts of the river for the first time since the Second World War. According to ICES and to national sources the production in river Torneå has not collapsed; on the contrary, in 1998 the production was among the highest observed since the early 1970’s. Although a reduction in production was observed in 1999, production is still very good 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/149

and almost 5 times higher than that observed in the period 1976-1987. Furthermore a reduction in the 1999 production was expected as the returning salmon were from less numerous year classes, affected by the M 74 syndrome, and hence fewer salmon would have participated in the spawning. Reduced run and catches in 1999 might not therefore be the result of the whitefish fisheries.

Provided the by-catches of salmon in whitefish fisheries is properly accounted for within the available Finnish quota or released alive when caught in this fishery, these catches will not undermine management in accordance with the salmon action plan.

The Commission is convinced of the need to continue with a responsible management strategy as laid down in the salmon action plan in order to achieve the objective of rebuilding of the wild salmon stocks in these rivers.

(2000/C 225 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2495/99 by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Legal certainty in the information society

The Commission has made impressive steps (through its proposals COM(98) 586 and COM(96) 392) towards giving participants in e-commerce and the information society a firm legal basis and legal scrutiny.

Can it confirm that it will do nothing which would undermine this legal security, for example by making Internet Service Providers liable in all countries, purely on the grounds that websites are accessible in those countries?

Will it ensure that future initiatives concerning extra-contractual liability will be in line with the abovementioned proposals and avoid the possibility of lawyers being able to ‘shop around’ for the national law most beneficial to them?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The Commission’s objective with its proposal for a Parliament and Council directive on certain legal aspects of electronic commerce in the internal market (1) and proposal for a Parliament and Council directive amending for the third time Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (2), has been to create a coherent and predictable legal framework for the development of e-commerce within the internal market. The recognition that a clearly defined legal framework based on established internal market principles is an essential element to promote e-commerce in the internal market is reflected in the political agreement on the common position on the proposed e-commerce directive reached by the Council on 7 December 1999.

The directive is based on the principle of country-of-origin control of information society services, particularly Internet service providers. This principle, together with the exemption from liability for ‘mere conduit’ and ‘caching’ and the limitation of liability for services consisting of hosting information for third parties, will create the required legal certainty and will stimulate investments. The proposed e-commerce directive does not establish rules on private international law nor does it deal with the jurisdiction of courts.

The Commission is analysing the information it has received from business and consumers alike in the context of a public hearing on the subject of electronic commerce jurisdiction and applicable law and will take it into account in presenting any new initiatives in this area.

(1) OJ C 30, 5.2.1999. (2) OJ C 307, 16.10.1996. C 225 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2497/99

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: The Millennium Round, the ultraperipheral regions and changes in the COM in bananas

The Millennium Round in Seattle is going to be thrashing out trade issues involving agriculture, and there is considerable social concern in the Community’s banana-producing regions, all of which are designated ultraperipheral under the Amsterdam Treaty, with regard to the Commission’s announcement that the COM in bananas is to be reformed because of hypothetical conflicts with the rules of international trade. What are the fundamental background reasons underpinning the Commission’s proposal to change the COM in bananas, and what measures, if any, does it intend to adopt when laying down the conditions for the application of the Community provisions included in the CAP to the ultraperipheral banana growing regions, pursuant to Article 229(2) of the EC Treaty, above all in view of these regions’ vulnerability thanks to their fragile environments and their dependency on outside energy sources?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

In April 1999 a World Trade Organisation disputes settlement panel found that some aspects of the Community banana scheme were not entirely compatible with the rules of the WTO.

After wide-ranging consultations with all the parties concerned, on 10 November 1999 the Commission adopted a proposal (1) for the amendment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas (2) with the aim of introducing arrangements complying with the WTO rules, at the same time respecting the commitments entered into under the Lomé Convention in relation to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, with due regard for the interests of Community producers and consumers.

As far as Community banana producers are concerned, it should be borne in mind that the decision of the WTO panel did not call into question the system of Community compensatory aid under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1858/93 of 9 July 1993 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the aid scheme to compensate for loss of income from marketing in the banana sector (3).

The Commission considers that the earnings of Community banana producers are assured by the present compensatory aid scheme with the amount being set each year to reflect the difference between the flat- rate reference income increased by 5 % in 1998 and from 1999 by up to 8 % and the average prices achieved during the banana marketing year. The scheme ensures the disposal of Community output on the market through the grant of full compensation irrespective of the trend of prices on the European Union market. The effectiveness of these arrangements was borne out in 1999 when banana prices on the world market experienced a sharp fall. The compensatory aid scheme made it possible to dispose of the entire Community output and in this way secured the earnings of growers of bananas.

(1) COM(1999) 582 final. (2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993. (3) OJ L 170, 13.7.1993. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/151

(2000/C 225 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2499/99 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Medi Telecom

With regard to the planned takeover, in the near future, of Medi Telecom by Telefónica Intercontinental SA and Portugal Telecom Internacional (Sgps), what observations have been submitted to the Commission? What will the takeover operation involve? When will the Commission adopt a final decision?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The transaction by means of which Telefónica InterContinental SA (controlled by Telefónica S.A.) and Portugal Telecom Internacional S.A. (controlled by Portugal Telecom S.A.) acquire joint control of Médi- Telecom, a company incorporated under Morocco law, was notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) (the Merger Regulation) on 17 November 1999.

Following the established procedure, a notice announcing this notification and inviting third parties to comment was published in the Official journal (2). The deadline for receipt of comments was 6 December 1999. The Commission is not authorised to disclose confidential information provided by those parties in connection with the transaction.

Médi Telecom has been created to install and operate a GSM cellular mobile telecommunications business in Morocco. It will be the second operator in the provision of those services in direct competition with the incumbent operator, which is so far the only player authorised in that market. The provision of Médi Telecom mobile telecommunication services is to be restricted to the territory of Morocco.

The Commission approved the decision on 17 December 1999 as the operation did not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989; corrected version OJ L 257, 21.9.1990; as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1310/97, OJ L 180, 9.7.1997, corrigendum in OJ L 40, 13.2.1998. (2) OJ C 336, 24.11.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2500/99 by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Common system of value-added tax the place where services are supplied

Which precise provision of Article 9 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes should, in the Commission’s opinion and subject to the application of Article 9(3) of the Directive, apply to the following services when they are supplied to a taxable person established in a country (be it a Member State or third country) other than that where the provider of the services is established:

the installation and renting out of stands offering another firm, as either a means or an end, the opportunity to advertise the qualities of its products at trade fairs;

management and administrative services offered by a parent company to other firms in the group; C 225 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

the services of company directors;

the transport by pipeline of liquid or gas from one Member State to another;

the management of a joint investment fund established in another Member State;

telephone communications in medium and long-haul aircraft;

music recording services intended for the creation of master tapes facilitating the publication of compact discs in another Member State;

the hire of lorries or railway trucks ito be used for transport throughout the Community, when the lessor is established outside the Community and the lessee is established in a Member State which avails itself of the option referred to in Article 9(3) of Directive 77/388/EEC;

the hiring out to a body governed by public law of movable property to enable it to carry on activities as a such a body and other activities referred to in Article 13 of Directive 77/388/EEC;

the services of soil analysis and the decontamination of soil polluted by industrial activities;

services carried out between two establishments belonging to the same legal entity but subject to VAT in two separate Member States;

the hiring out of containers, pallets and cranes;

the services of lawyers and arbitrators in trade disputes?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

(2000/C 225 E/166) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2751/99 by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of national legislation turnover tax

Does the Commission consider the following activities to be exempted under the terms of Article 13 of Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1):

deliveries of blood derivatives;

medical care provided by hospitals operating as commercial companies;

services provided by natural persons looking after young children;

receivership services in bankruptcy cases and arbitration services in commercial disputes provided by lawyers, the activities of whom are exempted under the terms of Annex F to the above directive;

the management of investment trusts established in a Member State other than that of the manager;

the loan component of transactions involving the leasing of movable property, the handing over of which is taxable under Articles 5 or 6 of the above directive;

the purchase by one company of a holding in another company with the direct purpose of taking immediate action to restructure the shareholder base and secure industrial synergies;

the rental of conference suites in hotels;

the services provided, in the collective interest of their members and in return for a membership fee laid down in accordance with their statutes, by non-profit-making organisations operating in the sports sector, in cases where such organisations have been granted exclusive powers by the public authorities to lay down rules governing a given sport, ranging from access thereto to participation in certain events and the settlement of disputes between members, and where payment of membership fees is therefore compulsory for anyone wishing to take part in certain competitions; (If such services are not exempted, how should they be treated?); 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/153

factoring transactions;

the rental of advertising hoardings mounted on buildings;

the handing over of land on which a building has been constructed, in cases where both the building and the land are handed over at the same time and the handing over of the building is taxable in accordance with Article 4(3)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC, but where a Member State has taken up the option referred to in Annex F(16)?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions P- 2500/99 and P-2751/99 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Honourable Member raises a series of complex and difficult issues under Community VAT legislation. Their tax treatment requires a detailed analysis of Articles 9 and 13 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/ EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment to determine whether or not exemptions apply in each case.

This question is broad in scope, highly specific in nature, and applies to a wide range of services; to answer it would require detailed case-by-case study. The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that such a detailed response would entail long and complex research which it is currently unable to undertake and which would far exceed what could reasonably be expected in the context of an answer to a written question.

(2000/C 225 E/167) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2501/99 by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Messina ‘territorial pact’

By a Ministerial Decree of 20 January 1999 the project for a holiday and study centre ‘Giardino di Sicilia’, designed to offer a combination of educational and recreational activities for the European general public, was approved in the context of the Messina ‘territorial pact’ (government project to promote employment). Membership of the pact was formalised with the Messina Chamber of Commerce, the authority responsible for administration, together with Sogepat (the company managing the pact), on 23 March 1999. The first instalment of funding should have been granted within two months of that date, but this has not yet happened, thereby jeopardising the whole project, which was scheduled to start in spring 2000. The lengthy procrastinations in the administration of the Messina pact are calling into question the very concept of partnership underlying the ‘territorial pacts’.

Can the Commission investigate the causes of these incomprehensible delays, which are creating problems for the local operators involved in the Messina pact?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The granting of funding under the territorial pact for the development of Messina and the relevant procedural and payment deadlines were determined under a national procedure laid down by the Interministerial Committee for Economic Planning. The Commission is not therefore in a position to reply, the matter being the exclusive responsibility of the competent national authorities. C 225 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2508/99 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Trade

On 9 November 1999, following the Council meeting of EU Industry Ministers, it became clear that the difficulties currently facing European shipyards in general and Spanish ones in particular are largely due to the ‘dumping’ practised by South Korea.

Why has no action been taken against the country in question, whose dumping practices are partly financed out of international funds?

(28 February 2000)

In its Conclusions of 9 November 1999 on the situation in world shipbuilding, the Industry Council shared the Commission’s view that the shipbuilding sector is facing a critical situation world-wide with very low prices and a serious overcapacity caused by the Republic of Korea, which severely affects the European shipbuilding industry.

The Council also expressed its serious concern on the results of the Commission’s investigations which indicate that contracts have been awarded in the Republic of Korea at prices below cost, thus causing damage to the interests of EU yards.

Consequently, the Council called on the Commission to pursue its efforts to establish a level playing field for the sector by immediately engaging the Republic of Korea in constructive consultations with a view to halting the unfair competition.

On the basis of these conclusions, a joint meeting between the representatives of the EC Commission and of EU industry on one side and the representatives of the Government of Korea and Korean Industry on the other side took place in Paris on 14 December 1999 in the framework of the OECD.

The two sides had a constructive dialogue on EU’s concerns over the world shipbuilding market situation which covered supply and demand, over-capacity and low prices and the question of the financing of Korean shipyards in difficulties like Halla and Daewoo.

(2000/C 225 E/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2511/99 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Infringement of the principle of sex equality in chess tournaments within the European Union

By law, all the EU Member States specifically ban mixed chess tournaments involving matches between players of the opposite sex. However, playing chess (which is an intellectual pursuit) does not require any particular muscular or physical capacity which could justify segregating players on the basis of their sex. Last year the Commission, in reply to a petition submitted by the Spanish citizen José Eduardo Da Riva Alfonso (Petition No 253/98), took the view that there was no justification whatever for such discrimination. Although it was true that, in certain sports, men and women competed in different categories, chess did not require any specific physical preparation or ability which was beyond the reach of women.

To quote from the Amsterdam Treaty and, in particular the following Articles thereof:

Article 2: ‘The Community shall have as its task, by … implementing common policies or activities …, to promote … equality between men and women’, 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/155

Article 3: ‘… the activities of the Community shall include … a contribution to education and training of quality …; the Community shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality between men and women’;

Article 13: ‘… the Council, … on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex …’,

and in view of the fact that discrimination in chess-playing and coaching is not covered by Directive 76/207/EEC (1) (on equal treatment as regards employment) since chess players cannot be regarded as salaried employees, does the Commission not think that, on the basis of the above-quoted articles, legislative initiatives should be launched in order to ensure that neither of the sexes is discriminated against in the pursuit of sport in general and chess in particular?

Does the Commission believe that it has done all it can to provide the Council with proposals intended to eradicate sex discrimination, which is one of the priority objectives laid down in the EC Treaty?

(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

The Commission is keen to emphasise that, just like the Honourable Member, it is very attentive to the issue of non-discrimination between women and men.

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, sport is an area in which equal opportunities are of particular importance. In certain sports men and women compete in separate categories in order to ensure opportunities for women and so one can speak of positive discrimination. In order to assemble all the relevant information with a view to assessing whether this principle applies to chess, the Commission will contact the competent international organisations in this field.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s opinion that this issue must be seen in the general context of equal opportunities. A standing group of Commissioners has been put in place, chaired by the President of the Commission; the group’s Vice-President is the Commissioner for employment and social affairs. The group’s mandate is mainly to ensure that the gender dimension is taken into account in all relevant Community policies and actions, pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Treaty (1). Besides, on 26 Novem- ber 1999 the Commission transmitted to the Council and, for consultation, to the European Parliament, a proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination (2) and proposals for directives establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (3) and on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (4).

(1) Communication from the President ‘Groups of Members of the Commission’. (2) SEC(1999) 1483 COM(1999) 567 final. (3) COM(1999) 565 final. (4) COM(1999) 566 final.

(2000/C 225 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2514/99 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Siting, in a rural tourism area (Abarán, in the Murcia area of Spain), of a waste water purification plant financed by means of the EU’s Leader II programme and the Spanish Government’s Future programme

On 18 June 1999 the Commission approved, in Abarán (Murcia), a project for country holiday accommodation in the Cañada Hidalgo district, to be financed by means of the Leader II programme (file No B.B3.080, name of Trinidad González Maquilón, 1 370 096 pesetas’ worth of funding to be provided). C 225 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

There are also plans for a waste water purification plant (likewise to be financed by the EU) to be sited in the same area, less than 100 yards away from the abovementioned project. This is discouraging local residents from undertaking subsidised conversions of their homes to make them suitable for rural tourism.

In the same location, approval has been granted for short hiking trails funded by the Spanish Govern- ment’s Future programme through the regional tourist board. They too are beneficiaries of EU funding.

1. Is the Commission aware of this contradictory situation?

2. What action is the Commission intending to take in order to sort out this matter?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2000)

The Commission was not aware of these projects funded under the Community Initiative Leader II in 1999 in the region of Murcia.

However, the facts related by the Honourable Member do merit the attention of the Commission.

The Commission is making enquiries of the Member State and will keep the Honourable Member informed about the result of this investigation.

(2000/C 225 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2522/99 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Sprat catches

To enable fishermen to keep abreast of important decisions of significance for them, will the Commission say how long it takes in the Commission to deal with a proposal on sprat catches, from the drafting stage through to finalised proposal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2000)

The elapsed time from the initiation of work by the services to the adoption of the proposal by the Commission may be about six weeks. This includes consultation, translation and the very procedure of adoption. However, this time may be extended if, during the process, changes are made to the proposal following comments by associated services.

(2000/C 225 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2523/99 by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Chernobyl

I am alarmed at the decision by Ukraine to put back on stream reactor 3 at Chernobyl nuclear plant. The Institute of Nuclear Protection and Safety (IPSN) has called for this reactor to be closed down as a matter of urgency, as it is seriously damaged. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/157

Given the particular weather conditions, and notably the very low temperatures which have forced the Ukrainian government to put the nuclear reactor in question back on stream, and the failure of the European Union and the G7 countries to provide economic assistance, will the Commission explain EU policy on this issue after so many years and say whether any assessment has been made of the serious risk facing European countries, and in particular the Balkans, from accidents at nuclear plants with records like Chernobyl?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The Commission shares the concern about the safety of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The incident that took place in unit 3 on 1 December 1999, only four days after the unit had restarted operation, highlighted the serious problems that affect the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Radioactive fall-out from this plant could potentially affect the whole of Europe. In this respect the Balkan region cannot be singled out.

The Commission’s policy with regard to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has for several years been based on the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed in 1995 between the government of Ukraine, the governments of the group of seven most industrialised countries and the Commission. This formulates a co-operative approach on the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive programme to support the decision of Ukraine to close the Chernobyl nuclear power plant by the year 2000. The programme addresses power sector reform, energy investment, nuclear safety and a social impact plan.

Through the Tacis programme, the Community has provided substantial support in all these areas. This includes support for the development of replacement electricity generation capacity, the development of a decommissioning plan for units 1-3 and the construction of pre-decommissioning facilities at Chernobyl. It should also be mentioned that the Community has made the largest contribution to the Chernobyl shelter fund intended to transform the current shelter around unit 4 into an environmentally stable system.

The Commission takes the firm view that the only operating unit at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant should be definitively closed in the course of the year 2000 as provided in the MoU. This will also enable continued close co-operation with Ukraine in all the relevant areas. The progress of this co-operation is dependent on the overall development of the Ukrainian economy. In this context, the Commission welcomes the confirmation by President Kuchma after his re-election that he is determined to progress with the necessary economic reforms.

The Commission’s commitment to increase nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe is also demonstrated by the recent agreements concerning plant closures reached between the Commission and the governments of Lithuania, Bulgaria and Slovakia. PHARE funds will be used to support the implementation of these closure agreements.

(2000/C 225 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2527/99

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Collapse of Attica Road Bridge

The Commission’s reply (1) to my question E-2176/98 (2) on quality control in respect of projects undertaken as part of the Second CSF states: ‘… on the basis of Greek law 2372/96, a specialised undertaking with an international reputation selected on the basis of a general competition has been charged with carrying out spot checks on the basis of a range of samples of co-funded projects’. C 225 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

In view of the collapse of the Attica Road Bridge, will the Commission say:

1. Which ‘specialised undertakings’ with an international reputation have undertaken the supervision of the Attica Road projects?

2. On the basis of which competition and on what grounds were the specific undertakings selected?

3. How many experts are employed to monitor the quality of the projects, who are they and what is the evidence of their experience?

4. What is the cost of allocating the supervision of the Attica Road projects to the specific companies concerned, and how does their remuneration compare with that of other undertakings which have undertaken the supervision of the Egnatia Road projects, for instance?

5. Does the Commission consider that there has been any mismanagement or waste of Community and national funds as regards the supervision of the Attica Road projects?

6. Following the tragic collapse of the Attica Road Bridge, does it intend to impose sanctions, and if so, what kind of sanctions on those responsible, so as to protect the reputation of its project?

7. Who, in the its opinion, should assume responsibility for the deaths and injuries caused by the collapse of the bridge and how will compensation be provided as a minimum form of recognition for the victims or their families?

(1) P-2120/98, OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 16. (2) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999, p. 51.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission does not have the information required under items 1 to 4 of the question put by the Honourable Member, which concern the contractual relations between the Greek state, the concession- holding group and any subcontractors it engaged.

The Commission is not in a position to decide whether this accident demonstrates possible bad management of the Community funds allocated to supervision of the construction of the bridge and work on Via Attica, because it does not know the circumstances and the causes of the accident. If the Greek judicial system established facts revealing a misuse of these funds, the Commission would then draw the requisite conclusions and would consider any recovery of funds required.

The Commission regrets the deaths and casualties caused by this tragic accident. The allocation of responsibility, penalties and compensation for the victims are matters for the Greek authorities.

(2000/C 225 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2532/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: European Year of languages and classical studies

On 19 October 1999 the Commission accepted the proposal from Commissioner Reding to designate 2001 European Year of Languages. According to the Commissioner, the purpose of this proposal is to protect Europe’s languages, promote foreign language acquisition and to raise public awareness of the issues involved. The programme of European Year of Languages covers the 11 official languages of the European Union, Irish, Luxembourgish, languages which are recognised in Member States such as Catalan and Basque and any languages which may be proposed by a Member State of the EU. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/159

Does the Commission agree that this programme should also include the classical languages ancient Greek and Latin, which constitute the cornerstone of European literary culture and civilisation? Does it not agree that such a move would send a positive message in the face of the decline of the teaching of these languages in the Member States? Will it support such a proposal if it is made by the government of a Member State?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

On 13 October 1999 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Decision of the Parliament and of the Council (1) to establish a European Year of Languages in 2001.

The objective of the European Year of Languages is to raise public awareness of linguistic diversity, to encourage lifelong language learning and to disseminate information on learning opportunities.

Knowledge of languages is important particularly in terms of the personal and professional development of the individual, intercultural understanding and the competitiveness of European companies. In addition, it allows us to benefit fully from free movement in the Community.

While the principal message of the European Year should not be directed at specific languages, the target languages are in fact defined in the Decision as the official languages of the Community, Irish, Luxembourgish and the other languages recognised by the Member States.

(1) COM(1999) 485 final.

(2000/C 225 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2533/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of Greek maritime law with community legislation

With a view to bringing Greek legislation in line with Directive 75/34 (1) (Article 7) and Regulation 1251/ 70 (2) (Article 7) and the ECJ judgment of 27 November 1997 the Greek Government recently issued a presidential decree abolishing Article 5 of the Code of Public Maritime Law which states that only vessels which are more than 50 % owned by Greek shipowners are deemed Greek vessels.

Seamen’s and shipowners’ union organisations are concerned lest vessels with owners from other Community Member States receive more favourable treatment than vessels with Greek owners.

Given the concerns expressed by these trade union organisations, will the Commission say:

1. Is there any possibility that ‘foreign’ vessels which will be based in Greece may receive more favourable treatment?

2. Will the Greek legal provisions applicable to Greek vessels apply to such vessels without discrimination, such as the provisions on the composition of crews, the establishment of a common working language, the granting of licences, manning, rescue measures etc.?

(1) OJ L 14, 20.1.1975, p. 10. (2) OJ L 142, 30.6.1970, p. 24. C 225 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The draft Presidential Decree amending Article 5 of Order No 187 of 29 September 3 October 1973 promulgating the code of public maritime law follows up the EC Judgment of 27 November 1997 in Case C62/96 on the conditions attached to ship registration. That draft was submitted for scrutiny by the Commission and considered to be in line with Community law and, once it has been published, will enable the infringement procedure to be filed.

Under Article 43 (former Article 52) of the EEC Treaty, ships belonging to Member State citizens or companies that have been entered in the Hellenic Register, must be subject to the same conditions as those applying to all other Greek ships. The provisions of Greek law relating to crew composition, the introduction of a common working language, the issue of operating licences, safety staff and other requirements of Greek law will also apply, without distinction, to such ships.

(2000/C 225 E/176) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2535/99

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Inequality under the Austrian law on universities

Articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty of Amsterdam state that students’ opportunities to study in other Member States should be encouraged. Freedom of movement for students and researchers improves individual citizens’ freedom of choice and their opportunities for personal development, and enhances the educational and intellectual resources of the Community.

The Austrian law on universities (Hochschulstudiumsgesetz, S. 7(1)) imposes requirements on applicants for a study place coming from other Member States different to those imposed on the country’s own nationals. In order to obtain a place, Austrians are required to show their ‘general’ school leaving certificate. However, a general school leaving certificate issued in Finland, for example, is not regarded as sufficient in Austria, and a ‘special’ school leaving certificate must also be shown. In practice this requirement has been interpreted as meaning that applicants for a study place must show that they already have a place to study in the same field at a university in their home country. Only after five years’ residence in Austria are other EU nationals freed from this requirement to hold two study places, which naturally cannot be demanded of Austrians.

Is the Commission aware of the problems caused by the Austrian law on universities? Does the Commission agree that legislation and practice in Austria hinder the free movement of students instead of encouraging it and accord differing status to different EU nationals? Does the Commission consider that the Austrian law on universities is in conflict with Articles 149 and 12 of the Treaty of Amsterdam? Does the Commission propose to take measures pursuant to Article 226 to remedy the situation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

The Commission notes that the mobility of students within the Community is based on respect for the principle of equal treatment in access to education in another Member State. This principle is ignored where the conditions imposed are such that, either directly on grounds of nationality or indirectly by other means, they put Community students in a less favourable position than students who hold national certificates, with the result that the former are denied admission to educational institutions. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/161

The academic recognition of certificates, the aim of which is to allow individuals with qualifications acquired in another Member State to pursue an education, falls within the competence of the Member States. In accordance with the EC Treaty, each Member State is responsible for the content of its teaching and the organisation of its own education system. The Member States are also free to lay down rules governing procedures of academic recognition. However, in compliance with Article 12 (ex Article 6) of the EC Treaty, Member States must refrain from direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality when applying these procedures.

The Commission is aware of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers. The Austrian legislation mentioned provides that all applicants wishing to study in a certain field in a higher education institution in Austria must show that their school-leaving certificate entitles them to an unconditional study place in the field of their choice in the country which issued the certificate.

The Commission has examined the conformity of the Austrian legislation (Universitäts-Studiengesetz UniStG) with Articles 12, 149 and 150 (ex Articles 126 and 127) of the EC Treaty. Having considered the Member State’s comments on the matter, the Commission has concluded that the imposition of additional requirements on individuals holding diplomas from other Member States, while no conditions of admission other than possession of a certificate are imposed on students who hold a certificate issued in Austria, constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality in terms of access to education, and as such is prohibited by Articles 12, 149 and 150 of the EC Treaty. As a result, the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings as provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(2000/C 225 E/177) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2542/99 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Driving regulations for people with diabetes mellitus

1. It has been represented to me on good medical authority that there is no evidence that drivers suffering from diabetes mellitus pose any abnormal danger to other road users. Is the Commission in possession of countervailing evidence that shows that such drivers do pose special dangers? If so, what is the evidence?

2. Under the (amended) Directive 91/439/EEC (1) insulin dependent diabetics are exposed to the risk of losing their driving licences and in certain cases their livelihoods.

3. Does the Commission agree that this amounts to unfair discrimination against the group of drivers in question?

4. Will the Commission therefore take steps to repeal the Directive?

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-495/98 by Mr Howitt (1).

The Commission can confirm that since that answer was given, there have been no developments in the field to prompt it to change its position.

(1) OJ C 310, 15.12.1998. C 225 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2550/99 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Agenda 2000

Reform of CAP was part of the Agenda 2000 package. Within that there was a promise to reform the milk regime. I understand that it will be 2003 before any reform takes place but in the meantime milk quotas for Ireland, Italy and Portugal have been increased. What were the reasons for this increase?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2000)

The Berlin European Council decided two essential points for the milk sector within the framework of Agenda 2000: the guide price for milk and the intervention prices for butter and skimmed milk powder would be reduced as from 2005 and the system of milk quotas would be continued until 2008 (although the Council committed itself to proceeding to a review in 2003 with a view to allowing the current arrangements to expire after 2006) with the national quotas being increased in two stages.

The increase in milk quotas was indissolubly linked on the one hand with the extension of the system of quotas beyond 31 March 2000, the date when the system expires, and on the other with the fall in institutional prices which made such an increase possible.

Therefore, and in view of the immediate and urgent structural problems involved in the continuation of the quota system, the Council decided on a special increase brought forward in relation to the linear 1,5 % increase in the quotas as from 2005 for five Member States, namely Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), as from 1 April 2000. This special increase moreover was decided on in the conviction that it will have little or no influence on the production of these Member States and therefore on the total volume of Community production.

(2000/C 225 E/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2553/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: VAT on provision of home care

Will the Commission please specify the rate or rates of VAT currently charged by each Member State on the provision of home care (for those with disabilities, the elderly and so forth)? Do these rates differ according to the type of service provider (i.e. local authorities, private companies for profit, charitable non- profit organisations, self-employed, etc.)?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

Under the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover Common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), Member States exempt home care where it meets the conditions set out in Article 13 of the Directive, in particular where it is provided by bodies governed by public law.

In addition, the Member States may apply a reduced rate to the supply of services and goods by bodies recognised as charitable by the Member State and engaged in welfare and social security work, where these are not exempt. Currently, the following rates are applied: Belgium: 6 %, 21 %, exempt; Denmark: 25 %; 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/163

Germany: 7 %; Greece: 8 %; Spain: 7 %; France: 20,6 %; Ireland: exempt; Italy: 20 %; Luxembourg: 3 %, 15 %, exempt; Netherlands: 17,5 %; Austria: 0 %, 10 %; Portugal: 17 %; Finland: exempt; Sweden: exempt, 25 %; United Kingdom: exempt. In other cases, the normal rate of VAT is applicable.

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 rate of VAT on labour-intensive services (2), also enables Member States, upon request, to apply a reduced rate to domestic care services from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002. Greece, France, Italy and Portugal have submitted requests for these services.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. (2) OJ L 277, 28.10.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/180) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2556/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Transmission masts

In view of the scientific evidence of possible health effects from the use of mobile telephone handsets, is the Commission concerned that there may be health effects from the stationing of mobile telephony transmission masts near to groups of people, particularly on educational premises, and does it intend to propose any minimum standards or safeguards in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (O HZ to 300 GHz) (1) sets up a system of basic restrictions and reference levels to prevent the occurrence of established adverse effects on human health of fields such as those generated by mobile phone base stations.

The Recommendation is addressed to the Member States which should take the necessary steps to ensure the high level of human health protection under the exposure limitation system that has been recommended. It is expected that it will also lead to the establishment of standards for equipment emitting electronic radiation of the type covered by the Recommendation.

(1) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/181) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2563/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Discrimination in the workplace

Would the Commission please state for each Member State whether there are laws forbidding discrimination in the workplace on the basis of: a) race, b) religion, c) gender, d) sexual orientation? Can it also state in each case the means of redress, and whether any case has been successful prosecuted in each of the four categories over the last year? C 225 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

There is considerable diversity in Member States’ law in this area. The Commission attributes particular importance to the issue and adopted on 25 November 1999 a draft directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1), as part of its package of proposals under Article 13 (ex-Article 6a) of the EC Treaty.

The Honourable Member can find a general description of the situation in the Commission’s communication on certain Community measures to combat discrimination (2).

The Commission is currently finalising a report on Member States’ legal provisions to combat discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The report is due to be published early in 2000.

As far as legislation on gender equality is concerned, Council Directive 76/207/CEE of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (3) has been implemented by all Member States and its Article 6 provides for means of redress to be introduced to national legal systems, by judicial process after possible recourse to other competent authorities. Concerning cases prosecuted, information is not yet available for 1999. For 1998, information can be found in the general report of the legal experts’ group on equal treatment of men and women for 1997 and 1998, which is available on the Europa website under the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg05/publicat/equ-opp/experts.pdf.

(1) COM(1999) 565 final. (2) COM(1999) 564 final. (3) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976.

(2000/C 225 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2564/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Recognition of the denturist-denturologist’s diploma under Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC

Dental technicians who carry out every stage in the manufacture of dental prostheses from measuring to fitting and have received further clinical training for the purpose, are given various names in the different Member States. In Belgium they use the term ‘dental prosthesist-denturist’, in the Netherlands ‘dental prosthetician’, in Denmark and the UK ‘clinical dental technician’, and in France ‘denturologist’. The international professional federation sticks to ‘denturist-denturologist’.

In view of the increasing mobility in the European Union it is important to be able to ascertain whether vocational training courses in the various Member States leading to the profession of ‘denturist-denturologist’ come under Directives 89/48/EEC (1) and 92/51/EEC (2), as they make provision for a system of recognition of higher education diplomas concluding vocational training courses of at least three years’ duration. It is also important to know the relationship between those practising the ‘denturist-denturologist’ profession and dentists. Some Member States give dentists a monopoly on all treatments carried out inside the mouth, thus including non-medical treatment such as technical and clinical treatment. In other Member States ‘denturist-denturologists’ are permitted to fit prostheses without dentists’ intervention. In between there are laws entitling ‘denturist-denturologists’ to fit dental prostheses after patients have obtained a certificate from their doctor. The law is clearly not harmonised in this area. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/165

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What is the state of affairs on the recognition of the various training courses leading to the profession of ‘denturist-denturologist’ in the 15 Member States?

2. What is the relationship between dentists and ‘denturist-denturologists’ in the 15 Member States?

3. How does the Commission view the initiative enabling ‘denturist-denturologists’ to exercise their profession with complete autonomy, possibly in cooperation with a dentist?

4. If the profession of ‘denturist-denturologist’ can be accepted as complying with Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC, can the Commission allow existing or prospective national law to make it impossible for this category of professionals to exercise their profession in a legal manner? Can the Commission allow medically trained professionals (dentists) to enjoy a monopoly for carrying out non-medical treatments, in this case clinical and technical treatments? Does the Commission approve the awarding of a monopoly position for carrying out certain treatments (‘work inside the mouth’) to one specific professional group as not being an infringement of Community law? If it is, what steps will the Commission be taking to deal with it? If it is not, what grounds does the Commission have for reaching this view?

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16. (2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 25.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

First of all, and as already explained in the answer given by the Commission to Written Question E-3073/ 95 by Mr Wijsenbeek (1), since the profession of ‘dental prosthesist-denturist’ or ‘denturist-denturologist’ has not been subject to any Community harmonisation, the Member States alone remain responsible for granting official status to, and regulating, this profession. This applies not just to training and access to this profession, but also to the conditions for pursuing this activity and, in particular, the field which it covers, which may or may not include ‘work inside the mouth’.

In the absence of any Community Directive specifically relating to this profession, recognition among the Member States of qualifications giving access to this profession tends in effect to fall within the scope of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher- education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (2) and Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training, to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (3). The system laid down by these Directives applies when the profession in question is ‘regulated’ in the host Member State, i.e. when access to, or the pursuit of, this profession is subject, directly or indirectly, by virtue of laws, regulations or administrative provisions, to the possession of a diploma. Once the qualifications have been recognised, the professional concerned will be subject to the same conditions for pursuing this activity (particularly in the same field of activity) as nationals of the host Member State. Under these circumstances, and given that these two Directives do not coordinate the content of training courses, it is not really possible to talk of specific professional training ‘complying’ with the aforementioned Directives. In effect, either the profession concerned is regulated under the terms of the Directives (89/48/EEC or 92/ 51/EEC, by level of training) or it is not. If it is not regulated, then the pursuit of the profession or activity concerned is free (i.e. not subject to any conditions concerning qualifications) or reserved for other professionals (see below).

Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC do not oblige the Commission to carry out in-depth studies into all the professions to which these Directives may apply, which is why the Commission has no detailed information on this profession, and particularly on the relationship between dentists and ‘denturists- denturologists’. However, according to information which the Commission does have at its disposal, the profession of ‘denturist-denturologist’ (whose field of activity includes ‘work inside the mouth’) does have official status in Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands and Finland. C 225 E/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Given the situation outlined above, it is not up to the Commission to comment on any initiative which would allow ‘denturists-denturologists’ to carry out their profession with complete autonomy, possibly in collaboration with a dentist, nor is it qualified to take such an initiative.

In the absence of Community harmonisation measures, the field in question is the responsibility of the national authorities, which means that the Member States have every right to give the monopoly for a specific activity (such as ‘work inside the mouth’) to another professional, in this instance the dentist. Given that the activities being carried out are non-harmonised medical activities, it is not an infringement of Community law to reserve these for a particular profession cf. the Court of Justice judgment of 3 October 1990 in case C-61/89 (Bouchoucha) (4).

Finally, as for the possibility of applying Community competition rules to the awarding, by certain Member States, of a monopoly position to one specific professional group for ‘work inside the mouth’, this could only be envisaged in the rather unlikely event of the professional group which holds the monopoly being manifestly incapable of satisfying the demand for services, as happened in case C-41/90 (Höfner) (5). The Commission has no information to suggest that this is the case with regard to the service in question.

(1) OJ C 79, 18.3.1996. (2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. (3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. (4) ECR 1990, p. I-3551. (5) ECR 1991, p. I-1979.

(2000/C 225 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2565/99 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) and Alain Krivine (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Health risks from processing Dutch lead batteries in France

1. Is the Commission aware that the Metal Blanc company in the French village of Bourg-Fidèle (Ardennes department) is processing waste lead batteries, and that as a result the surrounding area has become seriously polluted, which has meant that a quarter of children are suffering from lead poisoning, according to an inquiry by the Réseau National de Santé Publique (RNSP), it is dangerous to allow cows to graze and residents are being advised not to eat vegetables from their own gardens?

2. Is it also aware that the French courts closed down the Metal Blanc company some time ago, partly because it did not have a closed system for collecting lead fumes and waste water, but that in anticipation of the company’s compliance with the required provisions they have again granted permission to resume the transport and processing of lead waste?

3. Can the Commission confirm the position as stated by the Netherlands Minister for the Environment in answer to questions by the Dutch MP R. Poppe, that the procedure for the collection of orange list waste substances means that the authorities concerned decide, independently of one another, each for their own area, whether or not to grant permission to export and import waste, so that the Netherlands does not have to ask the relevant French authorities first about the accuracy of the data supplied by the company concerning its processing method?

4. Does the Commission agree that the procedure described in point 3 can mean that public health and environmental information available from the various authorities concerned is not exchanged soon enough, thus enabling companies to evade the usual national government controls by shipping waste to another Member State?

5. Can the Commission confirm that an investigation into the European lead industry is currently under way, under its responsibility? When will the results become available?

6. Will the Commission see to it that the European regulation on the transport of waste is revised to ensure that, prior to the transport of waste, all the authorities involved coordinate their data and take a pro-Community stand on the acceptability of its transport and reprocessing? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/167

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2000)

The Commission was informed by a complaint of the facts described by the Honourable Members. A letter of request for information was sent to the French government.

In the absence of an answer after more than eight months, the Commission addressed to this Member State, pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty (procedure for failure to fulfil an obligation) a letter of formal notice for violation of Article 10 (ex Article 5) of the EC Treaty (1). This provision stipulates that Member States should facilitate the Community institutions’ achievement of their mission. In this case France did not enable the Commission to ensure its mission of guardian of Community law. In response, the French authorities provided information and comments, underlining in particular that the infringements established had recently led the authorities to take strict measures and that the local court was continuing to deal with of the case. The complainants were informed of this answer.

The procedure applying to shipments of so-called ‘amber list’ wastes for recovery within the Community is laid down in Articles 6−9 of 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 (2). The notifier has to supply in the relevant notification of the shipment, information with particular regard to the identity of the consignee of the waste, the location of the recovery centre and the type and duration of the authorisation under which the centre operates. The notification, and thus the above-mentioned information, is made available to all authorities involved in the state of dispatch, destination and transit. A shipment may only be effected if, within a period of 30 days, none of the authorities involved have raised objections on any of the grounds outlined in Article 7 (4). The Regulation does not foresee a specific obligation for the authority of dispatch (in this case, in the Netherlands), to ask the authority of destination (in this case, in France) for confirmation whether the information supplied by the notifier on the notification form with regard to the intended recovery is correct. It is primarily up to the authority of destination to check whether this information is correct, and if this is not the case, to object to the shipment.

The Commission is of the opinion that the procedures of Council Regulation 259/93 ensure sufficient supervision and control of waste shipments for recovery within the Community and do not provide an incentive for economic operators to evade ‘usual national government controls’. The procedure under Articles 6−9 of Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93 requires the involvement of all authorities in controlling and supervising a given shipment. If only one of the authorities raises an objection, the shipment may not take place. The fact that an objection is raised has to be notified to all authorities involved. Therefore, irrespective of a possible authorisation of a shipment by the authority of dispatch, if the authority of destination raises an objection, this shipment may not take place.

The Danish authorities notified draft legislation concerning the ban on the import, sale and production of lead and lead-containing products to the Commission on 31 December 1998. On the basis of Directive 98/34/EC of the 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), the Commission had three months to react to the Danish notification. A further three month period was added since some Member States sent detailed opinions to the Danish authorities. The Commission also sent a letter of observations to the Danish authorities. The content of this notification and the scientific justification of the measures foreseen in the draft decree are currently being assessed by the Commission, with the assistance of the scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment which also has to give its opinion on the more general question of the effects of lead on human health and environment in the Community.

The procedures of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 ensure sufficient supervision and control of waste shipments for recovery within the Community. The Commission does not consider that an amendment of the procedures in the way suggested by the Honourable Members would add anything to the current level of supervision and control.

(1) Press release IP 99/812 of 29 October 1999. (2) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993. (3) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998. C 225 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2566/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Extending the deadline for discontinuing the use of super leaded petrol

What is the Commission’s position on allowing extensions to the 1 January 2000 deadline for discontinuing the use of super leaded petrol for some countries facing considerable difficulties, such as Greece where an estimated two million vehicles or more will be directly affected unless an extension is granted?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has granted Greece a derogation to continue to permit the marketing of leaded petrol within its territory until 31 December 2001.

(2000/C 225 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2567/99 by LORD Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB)

Does the Commission support the introduction of DAB across the Community and what steps is it taking actively to promote it?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2000)

The Commission welcomes the development of digital radio services on appropriate platforms in view of the important role that radio plays in the Community in social, cultural and economic terms and taking into account the current and potential advantages of digital transmissions. The Commission is therefore following digital radio developments very closely, including DAB (1), and has regular contacts with the parties involved in this process.

However the Commission considers that regulatory intervention in the area of electronic communications should comply with a number of principles, and in particular the principle of technological neutrality (see: ‘Towards a new framework for electronic communications infrastructure and associated services The 1999 communications review (2)’). Technological neutrality is particularly important because any kind of service can increasingly be delivered by any network or platform as technologies converge. Radio services are also being delivered via digital television platforms and the Internet; and new technologies such as Universal mobile telecommunications systems (UMTS) are being considered. Promoting any particular technology therefore carries a high risk of market distortion.

Consequently, the Commission is not actively promoting the introduction of any particular digital radio system across the Community.

(1) i.e the system developed by Project No 147 of the Eureka Programme. The main elements of this system have been standardised by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) through norms EN 300 797; EN 300 798 and EN 300 799 notably. (2) COM(1999) 539 final. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/169

(2000/C 225 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2569/99 by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Crisis in the SISMA (Società Industrie Siderurgiche Meccaniche) undertaking in Villadossola, Piedmont

For the last fifty years, the SISMA undertaking in Villadossola was the most important industrial undertaking in the Ossola Valley because of its high production capacity, the fact that it specialised in the production high-quality special steels, and the numerical strength of its workforce.

From 1947 to 1980 the undertaking’s employment policy was one of expansion, so that it ultimately employed 1 800 people.

In 1989, the undertaking was taken over by the Leali Group. In 1993, the Leali Group sold the hydroelectric power plants. The sale of those plants, which produced low-cost electric power, coincided with the start of a management policy which led to the dismantling of the undertaking. Nevertheless, a night shift and working on public holidays were introduced so as to save on the cost of electricity. At the same time, Dario Leali informed the local authorities of the commune of Villadossola that he also wished to take account of other factors affecting the steel industry and that he did not intend to put the SISMA undertaking in Villadossola on the list of undertakings to be restructured as provided for in the European plan for the restructuring of the steel industry. He nevertheless confirmed that the undertaking would be able to continue production

In October 1999, the Leali Group announced that as it did not have the 200 thousand million lire necessary for the restructuring of the Villadossola undertaking, the latter would cease production on 31 October 1999. As a result of this unexpected decision, 320 workers immediately lost their jobs, but the Leali Group still owns all the production plants in Villadossola.

It also appears that the Leali Group received aid from the Regional Fund and /or the Funds for the conversion of undertakings and /or the Funds for the restructuring of the steel industry.

Can the Commission provide the following information:

1. What was the amount of that aid?

2. How did the Leali Group use that aid?

3. What checks does the Commission carry out with regard to aid which has been granted?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

According to the information forwarded at this stage by the Italian authorities to the Commission, it appears that the ‘Gruppo Leali’ has not received aid from the European Regional Development Fund.

The Commission has, however, requested additional information from the Italian authorities and will pass it on to the Honourable Member.

(2000/C 225 E/187) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2571/99 by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 January 2000)

Subject: Secretariat of the Energy Charter

The Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad reported on 20 November that the Netherlands Government is concerned at the poor management at the Energy Charter Secretariat in Brussels. A year ago the management consultancy firm of Arthur D. Little issued a report on the management of the Secretariat at the request of the then chairman of the Governmental Council of the Energy Charter, Mr Rutten. C 225 E/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

1. What progress has been made on the Energy Charter Protocol?

2. Is the Council aware of the Arthur D. Little study on the operation of the Secretariat of the Energy Charter?

3. What is the status of this report, and when can it be made available to the Member States and the European Parliament?

4. Is it true that the Finnish Presidency has requested Mr Schütterle, Secretary-General of the Energy Charter, to communicate the report to the Member States?

5. Is it true that Germany considers it inappropriate to publish this report?

(28 February 2000)

The Energy Charter Treaty and the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environ- mental Aspects were signed in 1994. In accordance with Article 44 of the ECT, the Treaty and the Protocol entered into force on 16 April 1998, i.e. on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification with the Portuguese Republic, acting as depositary of the Treaty.

At this stage, 40 countries have ratified the Energy Charter. As far as the European Union is concerned, all the Member States and the European Communities have ratified it.

With regard to the report drawn up by the management consultancy firm Arthur D. Little on the operation of the Secretariat of the Energy Charter, this report falls within the internal management remit of that organisation. It is therefore not for the Council to comment on whether and when the report mentioned could be made available to the Member States and the European Parliament.

However, in connection with the preparation of the last session of the Energy Charter Conference which was held in Brussels on 7 December 1999, the Finnish Presidency did express the desire to have this report. It should be noted that the Conference unanimously decided to appoint a new Secretary-General to replace Mr Schütterle. The person in question is Ms Ria Kemper, who took up her duties on 1 January 2000.

(2000/C 225 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2573/99 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Commission reports on veterinary missions carried out in Belgium and Ireland

On 22 February 1999, the Commission published a Mission Report on a veterinary mission to Belgium. The Report revealed serious breaches in Belgium of Council Directive 91/628/EEC (1) on the protection of animals during transport, including the transport of unfit animals and the acceptance by the Belgian authorities of route plans for long journeys for pigs, even though the plans made no provision for the pigs to be rested, fed and watered after 24 hours’ travel, as required by Directive 91/628/EEC.

On 18 August 1999, the Commission published a Mission Report on a veterinary mission to Ireland. This revealed serious breaches in Ireland of Council Directive 91/628/EEC.

What steps is the Commission taking to require the Belgian and Irish authorities to ensure compliance with the requirements of Council Directive 91/628/EEC?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/171

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

The Belgian authorities were asked to send comments on the facts reported by the Commission’s food and veterinary office (FVO) in relation to a mission to Belgium on the protection of animals during transport. Although a reminder was sent and a new date of 30 August 1999 was fixed by which the authorities were to inform the Commission of measures taken to rectify the deficiencies, a reply has still not been received.

The Commission will shortly take a decision with regard to opening infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex-Article 169)of the EC Treaty in respect of the reported breaches by Belgium of its obligations under Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Directive 95/29/EC of June 1995, concerning the protection of animals during transport (1).

Concerning the recommendations of the report of the FVO mission to Ireland on the protection of animals during transport carried out during 1998 and 1999, the Commission was informed by the Irish authorities that a programme would be initiated targeting in particular the deficiencies highlighted within the country. The Commission has not yet received this programme.

The Commission has recently convened a new working group on the protection of animals during long distance transport which aims to consider all the problems involved in the enforcement of the relevant directives and possible solutions to these problems. Representatives of the authorities from Belgium and Ireland are both participating in this working group.

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(2000/C 225 E/189) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2576/99 by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Dietary and natural health products

Could the Commission please indicate whether there is any intention to harmonise legislation with regard to dietary supplements and natural health products?

Could the Commission also outline the differing positions of the Member States regarding the classification of health products as medicines?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2000)

The Commission had intended to put forward a proposal for a Parliament and Council directive on food supplements containing vitamins and minerals early in the year 2000.

The term ‘natural health product’ is not defined in Community legislation and the Commission has no intention to propose specific measures regarding these products. Existing Community pharmaceutical legislation makes no distinction between ‘natural’ or ‘non-natural’ products. According to Article 1 of Council Directive 65/65/EEC, of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products (1), any substance or combination of substances presented for treating or preventing disease in human beings or animals shall be regarded as a medicinal product. Likewise, any substance or combination of substances which may be administered to human beings or animals with a view to making a medicinal diagnosis or to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in human beings or animals, has to be considered a medicinal product. The decision whether a ‘natural health product’ falls under the above definition of medicinal product and therefore needs to be authorised as medicinal product must be taken by the national authorities on a case by case approach, taking into account both the ingredients and the presentation of a concrete ‘health product’. C 225 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

It is up to the regulatory authorities in Member States to apply the above principles of Community pharmaceutical legislation and to take concrete decisions on authorisations and restrictions (e.g. medical prescription) for specific products. The Commission is not considering a proposal to change that approach.

In the context of this question, the attention of the Honourable Member is also drawn to the answer already delivered by the Commission to Written Question P-2317/99 by Mr Fitzsimons (2) on regulatory control on herbal medicinal products in the Community.

(1) OJ 22, 9.2.1965. (2) See page 97.

(2000/C 225 E/190) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2577/99

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Transport of animals

It is clear from recent television pictures of horse transport that the provisions of the Transport of Animals Directive are not being properly enforced in many Member States.

The Commission has a duty to monitor the way that Member States are enforcing this Directive. However, for some years now, only one Inspector from the Food and Veterinary Office has been given this task. When will the Commission take its responsibilities in this area more seriously and increase the number of Inspectors to 12, as demanded by the Council of Agriculture Ministers in June 1995?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

The Commission is aware of the problems in relation to animal welfare reported by different television broadcasters in Europe. Reports by its food and veterinary office (FVO) and complaints from various animal welfare organisations also indicate that problems continue to exist in this domain.

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member’s views on the importance of protecting animal welfare in the field of transport.

The Commission is still in the process of recruiting inspection personnel and a number of new staff have specific responsibilities for monitoring the implementation of animal welfare legislation which applies in the Member States. The Commission is aware of the increasing importance attached to animal welfare by consumers and will continue to ensure that, amongst its other responsibilities, animal welfare will be given corresponding importance.

Given the importance of the issue, inspectors take account of animal welfare issues during missions in Member States. The practice of performing combined inspections will increase the level of information available concerning the enforcement of Community legislation in this field. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/173

(2000/C 225 E/191) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2582/99 by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Business Impact Assessment

Council Decision 97/15/EC (1) of 9 December 1996 requires the Commission to undertake a Business Impact Assessment (BIA) in respect of proposals that may have an impact on undertakings. There is widespread concern that BIAs are rarely carried out and that the Commission’s original unpublished proposal for procedural rules has been replaced by a requirement that gives little guidance to the services involved and is consequently frequently ignored. As a result, it is possible that non-legislative options may be given insufficient consideration and that legislative requirements may impose unnecessary costs affecting business competitiveness.

Will the Commission please indicate:

1. How many proposals to impose new regulations on business have been dropped as a result of the application of the Fiche d’Impact?

2. What costs were (a) reduced and (b) avoided as a result of the use of the Fiche d’Impact for the last year for which figures are available?

3. Will the Commission report to Parliament on the possibility of establishing verifiable targets for reducing the burden of regulation, measured by (a) volume of regulatory requirements and (b) costs imposed by those requirements, both overall and by individual DG?

4. Does the Commission agree that it is important that a BIA is undertaken in respect of any proposal that could entail costs for enterprises?

5. What steps it is taking to fulfil the requirements set out in its January 1999 Guidelines on Legislative Policy to produce detailed BIA guidelines and work closely with business organisations and Member States to ensure that these guidelines reflect business needs and national best practice?

6. Will it ensure that the production of a BIA is mandatory, not discretionary?

7. The Commission is proposing to establish a unit within the Directorate-General for Enterprise to administer the BIA system. How will it ensure that the Unit will be able to take effective action against other services, both in complying with the BIA requirement and having regard to the conclusions of BIAs?

(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1997, p. 25.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission is committed to improving and strengthening its business impact assessment (BIA) system as part of its consideration of legislative proposals. These internal Commission working procedures, along with comprehensive consultation with outside interests, are part of the open and transparent Commission policy as set out in the guidelines on legislative policy announced by the Commission in January 1996.

The Commission’s BIA system started in 1986 with the setting up of the small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) Task Force. At this stage an impact assessment was required for all Commission proposals for legislation. However, it soon became clear that the system was unworkable and too bureaucratic, particularly if assessments were required for legislation that had nothing to do with business. Consequently, as from 1 November 1990 (1) the Commission introduced changes to the system, most importantly that impact assessments would only be required for those proposals likely to have a significant impact on business, particularly on SMEs. C 225 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

The Commission has also established the business test panel project, within the single market action plan, which is a mechanism whereby proposed Community legislation can be critically reviewed directly by individual businesses in the Member States. This review process complements the BIA system, helps to see whether proposals will result in new increased compliance costs and administrative burdens for business, and gives an idea of their scale and magnitude. The business test panel is a pilot project, which will be reviewed in the year 2000.

A BIA appears as part of the documentation accompanying every legislative proposal which is likely to have a significant impact on business. This is published as part of a COM document which is submitted to the Council, the Parliament and the Economic and social committee. These documents are distributed by the Office of publications, they are available to outside interests, and scrutiny of their content is welcome.

Proposals to improve the BIA system are under active consideration within the Commission at a time of substantial changes and re-organisation of directorates-general. This review will assess the effectiveness of the current procedures against the background of the Commission’s commitment to ‘ better regulation’. This will also be done in close co-ordination with other Commission work and initiatives on the simplification of internal market legislation, such as simplification of legislation for the single market (SLIM), and the business test panel pilot project.

To answer the specific questions posed by the Honourable Member:

1. Due to the complexity of the decision making process, it is difficult to say how many legislative proposals have been dropped over the years directly as a result of a BIA. This would need to be considered on a case by case basis, and would take up considerable resources.

2. Up to now no quantification of the impact of BIAs on reducing or preventing costs has been carried out. However, the Commission published in 1997 a report on ‘Improving the quality of legislation for business: The European Commission’s business impact assessment system’. This report outlined the history and the development of the business impact assessment system along with a comprehensive collection of business impact assessments over the last years.

3. This question will need to be evaluated in the context of the review of the system.

4. The Commission agrees that it is important that BIAs are undertaken in respect of proposals that could impose costs on enterprises, but the system in itself should not become an unnecessary burden and a purely bureaucratic exercise. For these reasons BIAs should be limited to those proposals with a significant impact on businesses.

5. More detailed guidance on BIAs is being considered and the work will be taken forward as part of the review of the system.

6. A BIA is already required for all legislative proposals with a significant impact on business.

7. The new unit on ‘Regulatory co-ordination simplification and impact of legislation on SMEs’ became operational on 1st January 2000 and works in close co-operation with other directorates- general responsible for bringing forward legislative proposals.

(1) SEC(90) 2188.

(2000/C 225 E/192) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2583/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Travel insurance bundling

Is the Commission aware of the practice widespread in the United Kingdom, of travel agents bundling insurance with travel packages? Practices which require consumers to purchase the travel agent’s in-house 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/175

insurance with package holidays include travel agents offering so-called ‘free insurance’ as part of the travel package and tour operators refusing to confirm a holiday booking until the customer provides evidence of an equivalent alternative policy. Is the Commission aware of such practices in other Member States, and does it consider that such practices are compatible with EU law?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

The Commission has no specific information nor has it received complaints relating to the practices mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The matter is, in Community law, regulated by Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (1). Article 4(1)(b) requires the organiser or retailer to provide the consumer, in writing or any other appropriate form, with ‘information on the optional conclusion of an insurance policy to cover the cost of cancellation by the consumer or the cost of assistance, including repatriation, in the event of accident or illness.’.

In case the practices referred to by the Honourable Member appeared prima facie to infringe upon the Directive’s provisions as complemented by the national implementing measures for example by imposing compulsory instead of optional insurance it would appear appropriate that the issue be taken up with the national authorities.

In addition, it would seem advisable for consumers confronted with dubious contractual arrangements to contact a consumer organisation, with a view to assessing the legitimacy of the practices in question and considering the most effective course of action.

With regard to competition law, the practice of making the sale of one product conditional upon the purchase of another unrelated product, or ‘tying’ as this is also known, can constitute an infringement of the Community competition rules if the undertaking carrying out this practice enjoys a dominant position on the market, or if the practice arises as a result of an agreement between undertakings. The Honourable Member does not allege that travel agents in the United Kingdom have agreed among themselves to oblige consumers to combine the purchase of insurance with a travel package, while the Commission has no reason to believe that any travel agent or tour operator enjoys a dominant position in the United Kingdom. Under these circumstances, there would appear to be no reason for the Commission to open an investigation under the competition rules.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2000/C 225 E/193) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2584/99

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: BSE pathogens in meat-and-bone meal

According to a report on 26 August 1999 on Swiss German language television, there is evidence that EU provisions on the destruction of any BSE pathogens during the production of meat-and-bone meal were disregarded in Switzerland up to the end of 1997.

The report indicates that the Swiss producers at that time were unable in purely technical terms to heat the meat-and-bone meal as prescribed at pressure of 3 bar for 20 minutes at 133o C. Nonetheless, official export papers were issued, on the basis of which thousands of tonnes of meat-and-bone meal were exported from Switzerland into the EU area. C 225 E/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

1. Is the Commission aware of this case?

2. Did the Commission check bone meal imported from Switzerland? If so, what was the result of the checks?

3. Into which EU Member States was Swiss meat-and-bone meal imported up to 1997?

4. Is there information on how this meat-and-bone meal entered the food chain?

5. Did the Commission take steps to prevent further imports of meat-and-bone meal from Switzerland?

6. Is the Commission aware of any further such cases?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

The Commission is not familiar with the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member and intends to request the Swiss authorities for more detailed information. The Commission will notify the Honourable Member once it has received these particulars.

Generally speaking the Swiss health authorities keep a very close eye on trends in Community regulatory activity and integrate into their national legal order certain decisions adopted by the Member States. Hence, in May 1996 they began introducing into their regulations prescriptions equivalent to those provided for in Council Decision 96/449/EC of 18 July 1996 on the approval of alternative heat treatment systems for processing animal waste with a view to the inactivation of spongiform encephalopathy agents (1) (since replaced by Council Decision 1999/534/EC of 19 July 1999 on measures applying to the treatment of certain animal waste to protect against transmissible spongiform encephalopathy and amending Com- mission Decision 97/735/EC (2)), which laid down minimum criteria for treatment systems to be used in animal waste processing establishments (133o C, 20 minutes, 3 Bar).

The Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office has carried out inspection visits to evaluate the measures put in place by the Swiss authorities to control and eliminate bovine spongiform encephalopathy on their territory. These visits have not revealed any shortcomings by comparison with the European rules governing animal waste processing.

All the information contained in the inspection reports can be consulted on the Internet at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/vi/index_en.html.

(1) OJ L 184, 24.7.1996. (2) OJ L 204, 4.8.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2587/99 by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Hunting of migratory birds in Italy

With Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds the European Union declared its support to the conservation of all species of wild birds naturally occurring in the European territory of the Member States.

Italy has not to my knowledge transposed the directive on the conservation of wild birds. In some regions of Italy hunting is permitted of species (e.g. chaffinch, tree sparrow, starling, blackbird) that are not classed as species which may be hunted under Annex II. Furthermore, hunting with nets takes place, for example, although Article 8 of the directive prohibits the use of non-selective hunting methods. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/177

Is the Commission aware of this fact?

If so, what measures has the Commission taken or will it take to ensure transposition of Directive 79/409/ EEC in Italy?

Is the Commission considering instituting proceedings for infringement of the Treaty against Italy?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds has been transposed in Italy by law no 157 of 11 February 1992 on the protection of warm-blooded wild animals and on hunting. This is a framework law laying down the principles on the basis of which the regions adopt detailed rules. Under Article 13 of that law, hunters may use only shotguns, bows and arrows or falcons. Any hunting methods or weapons not expressly authorised in that Article are banned. Article 21 reinforces the ban by specifying which activities and methods are prohibited, including hunting with nets. As for the wild bird species, only those listed in Annex II of the Directive can be hunted under the above mentioned Italian legislation. Therefore, the capture of protected wild bird species and the use of nets are generally prohibited in Italy.

However, the system of wild bird protection set out in the Directive allows for some derogations. Article 9 of the Directive lists the requirements and conditions under which derogations to the provisions of the Directive are allowed. The Commission is aware that these conditions are not fully respected by the Italian legislation. The way of implementing the above mentioned derogation regime of the Directive in Italy does not comply with the provisions of Article 9 of the Directive. In the light of that, the Commission decided in 1998 to bring the matter before the Court of justice. The Commission had considered that Italy had failed to ensure respect for all conditions of the regime in certain situations where derogations are invoked and to correctly regulate the capture of three wild bird species for use as decoys. The case is now pending before the Court.

(2000/C 225 E/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2589/99 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Updating of driving licences

As it is no longer necessary to exchange driving licences when moving to a new Member State, which national authorities are now responsible for any necessary updating (e.g. change of address on the licence)?

Is the Commission aware that problems have arisen because of the country of residence’s claiming that this is a question for the Member State of origin, whereas the Member State of origin says that this is a matter for the new country of residence? If so, what does the Commission advise?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (1) establishes exclusive legal competence of the Member State of normal residence in case of replacement and renewal of licences, in case of application of national provisions of criminal and police laws and in case of voluntary exchange of the licence. Furthermore Directive 91/439/EEC foresees that a Member State of normal residence may apply its national rules on the period of validity of licences on all licence holders on its territory. C 225 E/178 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Only the Member State of normal residence may conduct all administrative proceedings concerning the competence mentioned above, thus including updating the licence on possible changes of address. The issuing Member State loses its competence on driving licence issues, by the time the driver establishes normal residence in another Member State and the host Member State is responsible for any national administrative provisions it applies to the driver taking up normal residence in its territory.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2000/C 225 E/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2591/99 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Withholding of the Schengen acquis

There has been a degree of concern in certain quarters at Westminster that the United Kingdom has opted into elements of the Schengen Accord without full knowledge of the whole of the acquis and certainly before being able to deposit that acquis coherently in the House of Commons Library.

Can the Commission identify those elements of the acquis which have not been released to date, as they retain their security grading status and remain restricted documents?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2000)

As far as the Commission knows, the United Kingdom has received the full texts of all the elements of the Schengen acquis which have been incorporated into the Union framework.

Article 1§ 2 of Council Decision 1999/435/EC of 20 May 1999 concerning the definition of the Schengen acquis for the purpose of determining, in conformity with the relevant provisions of the EC and EU Treaties, the legal basis for each of the provisions or decisions which constitute the acquis (1) stipulates that the Schengen acquis is to be published in the Official Journal with the exception of ‘those provisions which at the time of the adoption of this Decision are classified as ’confidential‘ by the Schengen Executive Committee’. The various elements of the Schengen acquis were thus incorporated into the Union framework with the security grading assigned to them by the Executive Committee. This grading is binding on all Member States.

(1) OJ L 176, 10.7.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2592/99 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Commissioners’ interests

The Commission’s website lists the declared interests of the last Commission.

When will the updated list be published in readily-accessible form?

Will all Commissioners contribute fully? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/179

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2000)

All the Members of the new Commission, including Mr Prodi, have made public declarations of their financial and other interests. All this information, including details of the professional activities and any assets of the Members’ spouses which could create a conflict of interest, has been available on the Internet since 27 August 1999 at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/interests/ index_en.htm).

These declarations have also been widely reported in the press.

(2000/C 225 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2595/99 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Support for IGC report

What was the nature, financial and material, of the support provided by (a) the British Government and (b) the Commission to the Von Weizsäcker-Dehaene-Simon Group while they were drafting their report on the IGC?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2000)

The Commission has no information regarding any possible financial or material support provided by the British government to the group ‘Von-Weizsäcker Dehaene Simon’.

In order to prepare its report, the group held four meetings in Brussels. For these four meetings, the Commission financed the travel expenses to Brussels, the hotel expenses in Brussels when required, and the luncheons. The Commission also financed the fees of the group’s ‘rapporteur’ and provided secretariat support.

(2000/C 225 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2597/99 by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: EU Youth Programme

The Commission has submitted a proposal for a new EU Youth Programme, to be launched at the beginning of 2000. The proposed programme relates mainly to young people in the 15-25 age bracket, and combines the activities of the youth programmes which finish at the end of 1999, Youth for Europe and European Voluntary Service for Young People. Parliament proposed a budget of EUR 980 million for the 7-year programme at second reading. The Council has not approved Parliament’s opinion and does not intend to begin the conciliation procedure this year. That being so, the decision on the programme will not be taken in time before the end of the year.

How does the Commission propose to ensure the continuation of the EU’s youth programmes after the current programmes finish at the end of 1999 and when the new programme has not yet been launched?

How does the Commission propose to prevent the proposed programme being dropped and to encourage the rapid taking of a decision on the programme? C 225 E/180 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

At this stage, the Council and Parliament have not yet reached a final compromise concerning the Youth programme. The first meeting of the Conciliation Committee was held on 27 January 2000, under the Portuguese Presidency. The Commission is confident that the new programme will be adopted. In so far as the conciliation procedure is to be concluded during the first quarter of the year 2000, all possible steps have been taken to ensure that the programme continues.

(2000/C 225 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2601/99 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Testing the effects of pesticides on environmental management and on pollution

1. Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands is playing a pioneering role in the EU in reducing pollution of the environment by toxic substances in agriculture in that the Dutch authority responsible for the approval of pesticides has banned, with effect from 2000, 42 pesticides still being used in agriculture?

2. Is the Commission also aware that this step forwards puts Dutch farms at a competitive disadvantage compared with similar farms in other EU Member States in that the ban on these 42 substances makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Dutch farmers to grow potatoes, bulbs, onions, grass seed, flax and beans? Dutch farmers who are already under considerable pressure are put in such a difficult position that the result is bankruptcies; one step forwards is tantamount to one step back.

3. Can the Commission say to what extent other Member States are adopting the measures taken by the Netherlands and, if so, when?

4. What action has been taken, or is being taken, to (further) limit the adverse affects of poisonous substances in agriculture, even if this is at the expense of further intensification and increases in scale in the agricultural sector?

5. Is the Commission prepared to combine the desire for reducing pollution of the environment with counteracting distortion of competition by working towards the introduction of a directive on pesticides applicable to all EU countries which is at least as stringent as the rules currently in force in the Netherlands?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

1. The Commission is aware that the Netherlands have reviewed recently the authorisation of a number of active substances.

2. Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1) provides conditions under which Member States can grant authorisations for plant protection products. This Directive provides for a gradual re-evaluation of all the active substances which were on the market in July 1993. This re-evaluation is under way. The Commission intends to adopt in early 2000 a new regulation to speed up this review.

3. The Commission has no information to which extent other Member States have taken or will take the same measures as the Netherlands. The Commission is however aware of the fact that other Member States are also reviewing the authorisation of certain plant protection products as provided in the Directive. It should be noted that the active substances on which the Netherlands have acted are not necessarily all authorised in all the other Member States. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/181

4. and 5. The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer at point 2 above. In addition, in line with the objectives set out in the Fifth environment action programme and its recent revision and the result of a multi-annual project ending in 1998 with some six reports discussed in a Commission workshop with all concerned, the Commission is preparing a communication to Council and Parliament. The workshop documents and conclusions are available on the website of the Commission at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ppps/home.htm.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2000/C 225 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2602/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Access of immigrants who are nationals of other EU Member States to government service posts in Luxembourg

On 19 March 1999, in its answer to Question E-4067/98 (1) by Mr Sérgio Ribeiro, the Commission said that infringement proceedings against would be taken out Luxembourg under Article 171 of the EC Treaty.

In the second half of the present year, DG V informed the CLAE (the Luxembourg liaison and action committee for non-nationals) that, despite the legislation adopted by the Luxembourg authorities, restrictions still existed as regards access to government service posts for immigrants from other Member States.

A competition is currently under way in Luxembourg city (the notice of competition appeared on 17 November 1999 and the deadline for applications is 24 December 1999) for a number of posts, for which Luxembourg nationality is specified as a condition for admission.

Can the Commission provide information on the situation regarding this?

(1) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 128.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that, following adoption of the act of 17 May 1999, it has dropped its infringement proceedings against Luxembourg.

This act provides that, in the research, teaching, health, inland transport, posts and telecommunications sectors and in the water, gas and electricity distribution services, the nationality requirement shall not apply to applicants who are Community nationals.

The ECJ judgment of 2 July 1996 (1) referred only to these areas, to which the Commission had restricted its action in line with its ‘global’ approach as set out in its Communication 88/C72/02 (2).

As regards posts in central or local government (as referred to in the notice of competition in question), it is for the national authorities, on the basis of the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice and under its supervision, to judge the applicability of Article 39(4) (formerly Article 48) of the EC Treaty on a case by case basis, depending on the duties and responsibilities attaching to each specific post (3).

The Commission is currently reviewing the situation in the Member States as regards access to government service outside the above sectors, in particular at the regulatory level. C 225 E/182 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Since the pertinent Community rules have primacy and are directly applicable in the legal systems of the Member States, citizens of the Union may assert their right to freedom of movement vis-à-vis the national authorities.

(1) Case C-473/93 Commission v Luxembourg [1996] ECR I-3207. (2) OJ C 72, 18.3.1988. (3) In this connection, see the above Court judgment, paragraph 27.

(2000/C 225 E/202) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2603/99 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Italy’s postponement of the application of the framework directives on waste

In Italy the ‘tax on waste’ (Tarsu) has been unjustly calculated on the basis of the surface area of dwellings rather than the number of tenants, which would be fairer. The Italian Government should have changed the law this year, but during the debate on the budget it decided to table an amendment to postpone the changes for yet another year. The introduction of the new legislation on waste was already postponed last year on the grounds that local government was not yet ready for it.

The ‘Ronchi’ Decree, which transposes Directives 91/156/EEC (1) and 94/62/EC (2), is therefore still not being applied in Italy, or only to a very small extent, despite the decree-laws of 8 November 1997 and the two decree-laws of 5 February and 1 April 1998, which do not seem to have fully transposed the directives.

This further postponement has resulted in the absence of a sound framework for waste policy, as well as the unfair application of a tax based on unacceptable criteria, which penalises many elderly and poor people, because it is precisely old people who live alone in large houses. Furthermore, it also penalises businesses which, although they produce little waste, have to pay as much as those which produce enormous quantities (for example a clothing shop compared with a restaurant).

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. whether measures have been taken against Italy for its failure to apply the above-mentioned directives in their entirety;

2. whether this postponement distances Italy even farther from Community directives and policies on waste;

3. whether it does not consider it appropriate to call on the competent authorities to prevent this further postponement from distancing Italy even farther from Community policies on waste;

4. what its general view of the whole matter is?

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32. (2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Honourable Member criticises a new amendment of Decree No 22 of 5 February 1997 on waste, which transposes Directives 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended by 91/156/EEC, 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 (2) on hazardous waste, and 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, because it would again postpone the adoption of the modifications to the criteria to be applied to calculate the amount payable under the urban waste tax in Italy. At present, the amount of the tax is calculated on the basis of the surface area of the single living units or commercial 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/183

units concerned, so that it penalises people living alone and businesses which produce little waste but are placed on wide surface areas. In accordance with the original version of the Decree No 22 of 5 February 1997, new criteria, better approaching the proportion of the tax amount to the quantity of waste produced, should have been adopted as from 1 January 1999.

The circumstance to which the Honourable Member makes reference could be relevant to Article 15 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as modified by Directive 91/156/EEC (hereinafter the Directive). This Article states that, in accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the cost of disposing of waste must be borne by: the holder who has waste handled by a waste collector or by an undertaking as referred to in Article 9, and/or the previous holders or the producer of the product from which the waste came. The Commission considers that, under the present Italian legislation, the cost of disposing of waste is borne by the holders who have waste handled by a waste collector. This is in line with Article 15 of the Directive.

In addition, the Commission recognizes that the above mentioned criterion may result in disproportion among the polluters as regards the amount to be paid in comparison with the quantity of waste produced. In particular, the Commission recognizes that the way Italy makes citizens pay for their waste is not an incentive to bring about waste prevention and therefore it is not in line with the 1996 review of the Community strategy for waste management (3). Making citizens pay for waste according to the quantities of waste produced is an effective way to contribute to waste minimization. However, on the basis of the elements given by the Honourable Member, it is not evident that any disproportion resulting from the current Italian approach is of a gravity that would infringe Article 15 of the Directive.

Infringement proceedings currently open against Italy for non conformity with the Directives mentioned by the Honourable Member concern the obligation to report under Article 8.3 of Directive 91/689/EEC and Article 12 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, the obligation to draw up waste management plans (under Directives 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by 91/156/EEC, 91/689/ EEC on hazardous waste, and 94/62/EC on packaging), the application of the waste regulation system to food waste at regional level (under Directives 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by 91/156/EEC), and the requirements for the exemption from the permit for undertakings which carry out hazardous waste recovery (under Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste).

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. (2) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991. (3) COM(96) 399 final.

(2000/C 225 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2606/99 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Early retirement pension scheme

Can the Commission confirm if there is going to be an increase in payment in the new early retirement pension scheme next year? If so, will those already receiving this pension through the old scheme, qualify for this increase?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2000)

The new Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (1) allows an increase of the maximum amounts eligible for Community support under the measure of early retirement which may be integrated in the framework of the rural development plans proposed by the Member States for the period 2000-2006. The increased aid amounts for early retirement would also only apply to new applicants to the scheme. Nevertheless, given that commitments under the existing scheme Council Regulation (EEC) No 2079/92 of 30 June 1992 instituting a Community aid scheme for early retirement from farming (2), should be integrated into the new rural development programming, it is not entirely excluded that the aid amounts C 225 E/184 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

for existing beneficiaries be raised to any increased amounts for new beneficiaries. However, such raise must be duly justified by the circumstances of the Member State concerned. The increase of maximum amounts eligible for Community support in the new Council Regulation does not as such justify an increase in payments under existing commitments.

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

(2000/C 225 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2607/99 by Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Telecom Italia S.p.A’s Audiotel services

Telecom S.p.A has the monopoly in Italy on Audiotel services which provide subscribers with useful services such as advice by telephone, information on various subjects and counselling.

Does the Commission intend to allow Telecom to abuse its monopoly by paying the bills of the companies providing these services if and when it pleases, even postponing indefinitely the payment of large sums of money on the ground of general irregularities?

One wanders who will benefit in cases like this where the service companies adversely affected do not even have the opportunity to vindicate themselves and are likely to go bankrupt, thus leading to the loss of jobs.

Does the Commission intend to look into the fact that, by letter of 21 October 1999 (Reference No 0028084-01), Telecom Italia S.p.A. of Via Dalmazzo 15, Turin stopped the payment of the sum owed since 1 August 1999 to the undertaking Publiline S.r.l. of Via Antiche Fornaci 66, Cremona, Italy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Audiotel services (audiotex) were deregulated in Italy by General Decree on Authorisations No 420/95. However, the provision of restricted access services must be subject to special conditions. The Commission has stepped in on several occasions to urge the Italian authorities to make such conditions public promptly, in order to enable audiotel companies to provide their services, and it is continuing to monitor the situation.

However, a number of companies are currently providing audiotel services via the Telecom Italia network (numbers starting with 166 and 144). Telecom Italia bills the customers and pays part of the amount charged to the service provider. Publiline is one such service provider.

According to the Commission’s information, Telecom Italia did indeed suspend payment to Publiline of sums charged to its subscribers in accordance with one of the conditions laid down in the contract between the two companies. It seems that the telecommunications company brought this case before the Italian courts.

In principle, the Commission does not intervene in cases pending before national courts. However, national courts can consult the Commission on points of law relating to the application of competition rules in cases brought before them, as stated in paragraph 38 of the Commission notice of 13 February 1993 on cooperation between national courts and the Commission in applying competition rules (1).

(1) OJ C 39, 13.2.1993. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/185

(2000/C 225 E/205) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2608/99 by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Directive 79/409/EEC Dates of the hunting season

The procedure for amending Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds initiated during the previous parliamentary term in order, inter alia, to lay down the detailed rules for the implementation and transposition into national law of Article 7 of that directive, has not been concluded. What, therefore, are the Commission’s views on the fixing of the dates of the hunting season in the various Member States?

Precisely how does it interpret the general provisions laid down in Article 7 in its present wording?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

As the procedure for amending Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds is not yet complete, the Member States must fix the dates of the hunting season for birds in accordance with the current provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 7 of the Directive.

Interpretation of Community law falls not to the Commission, but to the Court of Justice, which has already interpreted Article 7(4) in its judgments of 17 January 1991 (Case C-157/89, Commission v Italy (1)) and 19 January 1994 (Case C-435/92, Association pour la Protection des Animaux Sauvages and others v Préfet de Maine-et-Loire and Préfet de Loire-Atlantique, Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal administratif de Nantes France (2)).

(1) European Court Reports 1991, p. I-0057. (2) European Court Reports 1994, p. I-0067.

(2000/C 225 E/206) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2610/99 by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Restriction on freedom of movement because of returned goods rules concerning firearms

Is the Commission aware that in the Federal Republic of Germany with effect from 22 June 1999 persons bearing arms already entered in the European Firearms Pass require an additional information sheet ‘INF 3’ (on returned goods)?

Does the Commission agree that this is a restriction on freedom of movement?

The introduction of the European Firearms Pass was intended to provide definitive rules for the bearing of arms on the territory of the Member States, The purpose of the new form is not obvious. The value added tax is included in the purchase price. If a weapon is sold there is, in any case, an obligation to have it removed from the arms possession card or the European Firearms Pass within a period of four weeks. Presenting the European Firearms Pass should be sufficient for persons crossing borders.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2000)

Article 12 of Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (1) states that possession of a firearm during a journey through two or more Member States is C 225 E/186 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

subject to prior authorisation. By way of derogation, hunters, for firearms classified in categories C and D of Annex I of the Directive, and marksmen, for categories B, C and D, may without prior authorisation be in possession of one or more firearms classified in these categories during a journey through two or more Member States with a view to engaging in their activities, provided that they are in possession of a European firearms pass listing such firearm or firearms and provided that they are able to substantiate the reasons for their journey, in particular by producing an invitation. However, this derogation does not apply to journeys to a Member State which prohibits the acquisition and possession of the firearm in question or which, pursuant to Article 12(2) of Directive 91/477/EEC, makes it subject to authorisation.

The Commission has not been informed by the German authorities of the introduction of the document to which the honourable Member refers. On 16 December 1999, the Commission contacted the German authorities and asked them to explain the nature of the document and the reasons and grounds for introducing it in Germany. When the Commission receives a reply from the German authorities, it will ensure that the honourable Member is informed of the action it intends to take on the matter.

However, the Commission wishes to stress that the European firearms pass is the only document recognised by all the Member States as authorisation for the temporary movement of firearms in journeys between two or more Member States of EU nationals, in particular hunters and marksmen. Furthermore, given the Commission’s obligation under Article 12(2) of Directive 91/477/EEC, the question of the functioning of the European firearms pass will be duly taken into account in the report on the application of this Directive which the Commission will address to the Parliament and the Council in the course of 2000.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.

(2000/C 225 E/207) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2614/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Irregularities and problems in the allocation and use of financing from Community funds for Katerini General Hospital

On 26 November 1996 the Greek Government’s Public Corporation for the Construction of Medical Units (PCCMU) awarded the contract for building the Prefectural General Hospital of Katerini to a particular joint venture, in spite of its inexplicably low tender and various other irregularities in the way the contract awarding process had been carried out. Specifically, the PCCMU decided to award the contract without the approval of the Competition Committee, which had asked why the tender was so low but had never received an answer, and had therefore not given its approval. Long delays in carrying out the work were one of the consequences of the above, resulting in a penal clause amounting to 90 million drachmas being applied to the contracting joint venture. Most bizarrely, however, the contractor did not forfeit the job, as is usual in such circumstances, but was granted an extension of eight months by the PCCMU in which to complete it. Today, however, 33 months after the contract was awarded and just five months away from the deadline for completion, not even the frame is ready and barely 20 % of the total is estimated to have been finished. The Commission’s Directorate-General XV, in a warning letter sent on 5 May 1998 to the responsible Greek authorities, expressed reservations about the contract awarding process and fears that the project might not be continued.

Could the Commission say what the precise reasons were that prompted it to send this letter, who it considers to blame for the whole situation and especially the delays, and whether it believes that there are good reasons for the sums allocated for the completion of the work to be definitively forfeited? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/187

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has examined this case following a complaint which called into question the legality of the award procedure for this contract. On the basis of the information contained in the complaint, the Commission expressed reservations about the legality of certain parts of the procedure in a letter sent to the Greek authorities, and has requested further information and comments from these authorities. Certain details which cast doubt on the legality of this contract have also appeared in the Greek press. Before concluding its examination, the Commission has, therefore, also attempted to determine the truth of these allegations. The examination of this dossier will be completed shortly.

The fact that there have been delays in the construction of the building is certainly regrettable, but it is not up to the Commission to apportion responsibility.

The Commission would also like to assure the Honourable Member that Community co-financing for carrying out this project will be re-examined once the Commission has concluded its final assessment of the aforementioned complaint.

(2000/C 225 E/208) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2635/99 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Support for nuclear energy and renewable energies

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

2. If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2000)

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

(2000/C 225 E/209) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/99 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Indian leather industry subsidies

Last year I tabled a question (E-3882/99) (1) to the Commission which elicited a response referring me to the Commission’s reply to another question of mine (P-3790/98) (2), which had nothing to do with the new question at all.

I would therefore repeat my request: will the Commission send me the list of projects funded by the EU in India helping the Indian leather industry (leather, footwear and fine leather goods), stating the date of approval and the objectives?

(1) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 155. (2) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 150. C 225 E/188 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The Commission is not currently financing any projects specifically benefiting the Indian leather industry, nor has it done so in recent years; nor are there any plans for financing such projects.

The Commission regrets the error it made in its answer to written question E-3822/98 by the Honourable Member, referring him to a previous answer to his written question P-3790/98, which included information on aid to the Catalan leather industry (point 4.6).

(2000/C 225 E/210) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2659/99

by Othmar Karas (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Impact on hunting of the designation of the Hohe Tauern (A) National Park as a Natura 2000 site

The Hohe Tauern National Park in Austria has been designated a Natura 2000 site. In the Natura 2000 Newsletter No 5 of February 1998 the competent Directorate-General (XI) expressly states that hunting in the designated sites is not automatically prohibited under the Directive.

Is it true that the Habitats Directive 92/43 (1) will have no impact on hunting in the Hohe Tauern National Park? In this area hunting has always played a considerable role in protecting and conserving species and biotopes and should continue to do so. Does the Commission agree that hunting is not to be interpreted as one of those disruptive factors which are prohibited under the Directive by reason of their significantly negative impact on the environment?

The Commission has drafted guidelines for the application and interpretation by the Member States of Article 6 of the Directive. Why have these guidelines, which have been under discussion for over six months, still not been submitted to the European Parliament for its assessment and opinion? Do these guidelines contain any clarification regarding hunting in Natura 2000 areas?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The inclusion of areas in Natura 2000 is not intended as a block on human activities (e.g. hunting). The emphasis is on ensuring that human activities are sustainable and not damaging to conservation values. Member States are responsible for taking appropriate steps to avoid, in a Natura 2000 site, any deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as significant disturbance of the species for which a site was designated. This corresponds to provisions laid down in Article 6(2) of Directive 92/ 43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the ‘Habitats Directive’). They concern both sites to be designated under the Habitats Directive, and sites designated under Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild birds (1) (the ‘Birds Directive’).

In this framework the question of hunting within Natura 2000 sites must be addressed on a case by case basis. How far restrictions on hunting in the national park of ‘Hohe Tauern’ are necessary or not, is to be determined by the Austrian authorities.

Although not obligatory, the Habitats Directive identifies management plans, specifically designed for Natura 2000 sites or integrated into other development plans, as a valuable tool in providing a framework in which the different interests influencing such sites (e.g. hunting) can be adequately addressed. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/189

The Commission is currently preparing, in co-operation with Member States nature authorities, a document called ‘Interpretation guide to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC’. Its main purpose will be to suggest a legal interpretation of terms and concepts used in this article. This document will reflect only the views of the Commission and will not be of a binding nature. As soon as the document is finalised, it will be available to all interested parties.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2000/C 225 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2666/99 by Francis Decourrière (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Directive 92/43/EEC

With regard to the application of Annex III of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992, Stage 2, paragraph 2(b) provides that the assessment of the Community importance of a site shall take account of the ‘geographical situation of the site in relation to migration routes of species in Annex II and whether it belongs to a continuous ecosystem situated on both sides of one or more internal Community frontiers’.

Socio-economic activities on either side of a frontier are sometimes completely different, since frontiers are governed by national law. For example, hunting and fishing are lawful and traditional activities in France in publicly-owned coastal land, whereas they do not exist on the other side of the frontier, in Belgium.

1. Since economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics have to be taken into account (Article 2 of the directive), how does the Commission intend to reconcile managing these border sites of great ecological value (classified as nature reserves or biogenetic reserves), linked with an Annex II species (Phoca vitulina), with such variations in activity?

2. Should these sites be managed by a single body?

3. Will these cross-border sites benefit from special conditions, particularly financial conditions, in the introductory phase of Directive 92/43/EEC and in the context of its main application in 2004?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Site management is the responsibility of the Member States, under the terms of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. It is for each country to establish the conservation measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the Annex II species present on the sites. The Commission is involved in the selection of sites but not their management.

The Directive does not provide that cross-border sites should be managed by a single body. Each Member State and its neighbours must assess the degree of cooperation necessary to ensure that the Directive’s objective is achieved.

Under Article 8 on the cofinancing of conservation measures for sites hosting priority habitats or species, the Directive does not give priority to cross-border sites. However, several Community instruments enable special attention to be given to these sites. The Commission encourages the Member States to use these instruments for Natura 2000 cross-border site management. C 225 E/190 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/212) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2671/99 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Cards for EU citizens entering Italy

On 15 November 1999 German tourists on a ferry from Tunis to Livorno (Italy) had to have orange cards stamped. Otherwise, according to the Italian authorities, they would have been refused entry to Italy. Customs officials said that without the stamp they would not have been allowed to leave the ship. Entry into Italy was delayed as a result by several hours. The tourists regarded this as harassment pure and simple.

Is there any reason why EU citizens have to present special entry permits for Italy?

If not, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The Commission will make the necessary contacts with the Italian authorities in order to obtain all the details on the facts reported by the Honourable Member. It will not fail to take such action as may be necessary under the procedure provided for by Article 226 (former Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(2000/C 225 E/213) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2675/99 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Commission policy on takeovers

Following the announcement of the Vodaphone bid for Mannesmann, Commissioner Monti was quoted in a British newspaper suggesting that the controversy this bid had provoked highlighted the necessity of finding agreement on the proposed takeovers directive (the 13th company law directive concerning takeover bids).

The British business community has opposed this proposed directive on the basis that it would impose costly legal burdens on them and override the UK’s Takeover Panel, which has a proven track record of successfully dealing with takeover questions on a non-statutory basis.

How will the Commission’s proposals resolve these issues and ensure that takeovers are policed effectively at national or European level?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The amended proposal for a thirteenth Directive of the Parliament and the Council on company law concerning take over bids (1) aims at establishing equivalent minimum safeguards for the protection of minority shareholders in the case of a transfer of corporate control.

The proposed directive requires Member States to designate one or more supervisory authorities which must supervise the bid. Because of differences in legal tradition, the question to what extent recourse 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/191

against the decisions of a supervisory authority is possible before the courts is left to Member States. The proposed directive does however contain guidance on how to police cross-border take over bids which involve supervisory authorities in more than one Member State.

(1) OJ C 378, 13.12.1997.

(2000/C 225 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2681/99

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Statements by the Spanish government on the unresolved issue of state aid to the electricity sector

The Spanish government, and in particular the Minister for Industry and government spokesman, Josep Piqué, have stated on numerous occasions that the Commission is to adopt a decision on state aids to the Spanish electricity sector in respect of the costs of transition to competition by the end of 1999.

Can the Commission confirm the Spanish government’s assertions?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

In discussions between the Spanish Minister and the Member of the Commission responsible for competition policy the intention was indeed to reach a decision on this case before the end of 1999. However, the search for an independent consultant and the complexity of the case made it impossible to meet this target. The Commission still hopes to be able to adopt a decision shortly.

(2000/C 225 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2682/99

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Decision on an unresolved case concerning state aids

The Spanish press has published information taken from the Ministry for Industry’s Boletín de Energía Eléctrica (electricity newsletter), stating that electricity companies have already received a total of PTA 387 223 m in the form of state aids. Spanish consumers are paying for this through higher electricity bills.

In reply to an earlier question of mine, the Commission reported that it had not considered it appropriate to rule that payment of the aid be suspended, given, ‘the absence of a pre-existing framework, the complexity of the issue and discussions currently taking place’. Meanwhile, consumers continue to foot the bill for what is in principle considered unlawful state aid, and companies have received approximately 30 % of the total amount, which will be difficult to recover, should a decision be made to that effect.

Does the Commission agree that the time has now come to rule that payments be suspended? C 225 E/192 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

The Commission feels that, should it prove necessary, it could recover the aid already paid under Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1). For the moment, and for the same reasons set out in the answer to written question E-2681/99 (2) by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that there are no grounds for exercising the power conferred by Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999. (2) See page 191.

(2000/C 225 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2684/99 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Air transport

In the view of the Commission, what conditions must regional inter-island flights fulfil for the purposes of the public service obligation declaration? In general, what are the Commission’s views on this type of declaration?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

Under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (1), a Member State may impose a public service obligation in respect of scheduled air services to an airport serving a peripheral or development region in its territory or on a thin route to any regional airport in its territory, any such route being considered vital for the economic development of the region in which the airport is located.

The services to the islands are particularly well suited to treatment under those provisions. Indeed, the islands frequently emerge as peripheral or development regions. In addition the traffic to them is often of low density. Finally, the routes in question are as a general rule considered to be vital to the economic development of the islands in question.

Under those provisions France, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom have imposed public service obligations on several routes serving islands in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.12.1992.

(2000/C 225 E/217) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2687/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Composition and funding of the Commission President’s communications team

The Commission President has called in a communications team to put across his political message. This approach not unintentionally displays many similarities with the British prime minister’s methods. One of Mr Prodi’s advisers is apparently a former press secretary of Tony Blair. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/193

Journalist Dorien Presser, writing in the Volkskrant, described this as propaganda. ‘ He [the British Prime Minister] shows little interest in Parliament or the critical press. For Blair democracy is essentially a propaganda technique. He has a command of this technique which would have made Goebbels jealous. Using slick communications strategies he appeals directly to the people’.

1. Since when has the President of the Commission been assisted by a communications team?

2. Who are the members of, or advisers taking part in, this team?

3. Who is responsible for the operational management of the team?

4. What division of responsibilities and hierarchical structure has been established in the team?

5. What are the links between the members of the team and the European Commission?

6. Is the communications team dependent on the Press and Communication service?

7. What is the annual budget for funding the communications team?

8. What objectives are stressed by the communications team in its action plan?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2000)

Neither the Commission nor the President has a ‘communication team’ outside the Press and Communica- tion Service, the organisation chart of which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. No adviser or former adviser of the British Prime Minister is part of that Service.

The Press and Communication Service, which continues the functions of the former Spokesman’s Service and some of the activities of the former Directorate-General for Information, Communication, Culture and the Audiovisual Media, is a Commission service just like all the other Directorates-General. It is run by a Head of Service who reports to the President, as does the Commission Spokesman, who also belongs to the Service.

The Press and Communication Service is financed from Part A of the Community budget. It is governed by the same budgetary rules as all the Commission’s Directorates-General.

The objective of the Press and Communication Service is not to issue propaganda but to communicate comprehensive information on Commission activities in a transparent and open manner.

(2000/C 225 E/218) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2692/99 by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Conversion of usufruct into ownership

Privatisation in Poland has been organised in such a way that the land holdings belonging to an enterprise have in many cases not been transferred forthwith to private ownership. Instead, a statutory right of usufruct has been conferred on the buyer of the enterprise. Conversion of this usufructuary enjoyment into a full ownership right has since been discussed in Poland on several occasions.

Could the above debate spill over into the accession negotiations, and, if so, how would the issue make itself felt?

Does the Commission, in any event, know how matters currently stand in the discussion, which in the final analysis also affects Union firms operating in Poland? C 225 E/194 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2000)

The question of transforming leasehold, granted in the course of privatisation, to full property rights is not covered by the acquis. In particular, it is not subject of Article 157 (ex Article 130) EC Treaty and thus not subject of the accession negotiations. For this reason, the Commission is not in a position to inform the Honourable Member on this question.

However, under the negotiation chapter ‘Industrial Policy’, the European Union highlighted the importance of complying with the principles of Community industrial policy based on open and competitive markets. In that respect the European Union noted Poland’s statement that it will apply effectively Article 157 of the EC Treaty and conduct privatisation and industrial restructuring in conformity with these principles. The Commission will, throughout the negotiations, monitor general progress in the privatisation and restructuring of Polish industry.

(2000/C 225 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2695/99 by Ilka Schröder (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Nuclear programme in Morocco

The Commission stated, in its answer to Question H-0570/99 (1) on the nuclear programme in Morocco and the Spain/Morocco electricity link, that there is no connection between the Moroccan programmes and the cable link. It emphasised, however, that the quantity of energy which this link has the potential to transport is equivalent to that which could be produced by a major power station. What did the Commission mean by this reference to a major power station? Was it by any chance referring to a medium-sized nuclear power station?

In the same answer, the Commission also said that the use of nuclear energy is only acceptable provided the high safety standards laid down in international law are guaranteed. How can the Commission guarantee and monitor nuclear safety standards for the Moroccan nuclear energy industry?

The Commission has stated that the objective of the cable link is to supply Morocco with energy at competitive prices during the summer period. If this is so, what possible justification can there be for not using the trans-Morocco gas pipeline which supplies Spain with Algerian gas to cover Morocco’s summer energy requirements, rather than transferring energy from Spain to Morocco?

In 1995, the Moroccan government met with the French Atomic Energy Centre (CEA), as well as with several other French bodies and enterprises, to plan the construction of a nuclear research centre in Maamora. What stage has been reached in the construction of this centre? What are its research objectives? Do its objectives include the development of civil and military nuclear energy? What EU enterprises and governments are associated with the project for this centre? To what extent does the Commission view a Moroccan programme for expanding nuclear energy as a threat to stability in the region, especially for the Western Sahara, in the present delicate pre-referendum conjuncture? What action has the Commission taken, and what action does it intend to take, in support of peaceful management and of the acceptance of the results of the referendum in the Western Sahara?

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 1999).

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

In its answer to Question H-570/99, put by the Honourable Member during question time in November 1999 (1), concerning the capacity of the Spain/Morocco electricity link, the Commission 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/195

explained that the link could potentially transport power equivalent to the output of a major power station, to wit some 750 Megawatts (Mw). The Commission stressed that the link made the construction of a nuclear power station unlikely: by carrying electricity from Spain to Morocco it rendered the construction of a nuclear power station with an equivalent capacity uneconomic.

Nuclear power stations normally have a capacity of at least 600 Mw. The largest have a capacity of 1000 Mw or more.

A nuclear power station naturally has to offer every possible guarantee that safety requirements have been satisfied. This is the province of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). France’s department of nuclear safety is quite probably sharing its know-how too. The link permits more effective use of the capacity available. Were Morocco to build a nuclear power station, it would not be for the Commission to carry out checks incumbent on other bodies.

As for the use of gas, Morocco and Algeria would appear to be negotiating the supply of gas to cover Morocco’s future energy needs.

The French government would indeed appear to be involved with the Moroccan government in this project. The Maâmoura nuclear research centre is not a secret project. Construction started last August, and the centre is to be devoted exclusively to civil applications, primarily in the fields of health and food- processing. Since the project lies outside the Commission’s sphere of competence, it cannot provide the Honourable Member with detailed answers.

The Commission has consistently supported UN efforts to organise a referendum on the future of the Western Sahara. It intends to pursue this policy or any other course of action decided by the UN with a view to settling the question of the Western Sahara peacefully.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 1999).

(2000/C 225 E/220) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2697/99 by Rosa Díez González (PSE) to the Council

(3 January 2000)

Subject: Information on European Union citizens condemned to death

Is the Council in possession of information on the numbers, the identities, the legal situations, the conditions of detention and the personal and family situations of nationals of Member States of the European Union condemned to death in other countries? Has it attempted to obtain this information, and, if so, will it forward it to the author of this question and to the European Parliament?

If the Council is not in possession of such information, does it not agree that steps need to be taken to establish a system for keeping proper records of these cases? What action does it intend to take to remedy this lack of information?

(28 February 2000)

The Council is not in possession of the information requested concerning the number of European Union citizens condemned to death in third countries.

The European Union, which is campaigning resolutely for the universal abolition of the death penalty, regularly intervenes to prevent third countries concerned from imposing or executing the death penalty, in particular following initiatives taken along such lines within the Council, by its members and/or its Presidency. C 225 E/196 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/221) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2704/99 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Transport of animals

Recent investigations carried out by animal welfare NGOs have shown that many farm animals suffer during long-distance transportation to slaughterhouses.

The Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, will be presenting a summary of these investigations to the European Commission prior to a review of the Directive on the Protection of Animals during Transport (91/628/ EEC (1) as amended by 95/29/EC (2)). It is clear that the enforcement of the transport rules is not being taken seriously by Member States. What steps is the Commission proposing to take to ensure better enforcement?

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

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

The Commission is aware, both from information gathered during inspection missions and as a result of complaints from animal welfare organisations (such as the report from Eurogroup for animal welfare mentioned by the Honourable Member), that journeys which are in breach of the provisions of Council Directive 91/628/EC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 concerning the protection of animals during transport (1), notably in relation to time limits and resting, feeding and watering requirements, still frequently take place in the Community.

Concerning future activities the Commission is considering measures based on an opinion of the scientific committee on animal welfare adopted on 8 December 1999, on standards in the vehicles transporting livestock. This proposal is foreseen for the first quarter of 2000.

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 including the import of horses from third countries. Copies of the report from Eurogroup mentioned above have been distributed to the Member States during the first meeting of the group. During the next year the Commission will consider proposals to amend current Community legislation on the basis of the conclusions of this working group.

During the first quarter of 2000, as provided by Article 13 of Council Directive 91/628/EEC (2), the Commission will present to the Council a report on the experience acquired by Member States since the implementation of this Directive. The report will take into consideration all the information transmitted by Member States, the result of the inspection carried out by the food and veterinary office in this field and the data derived from the complaints from non-governmental organisations.

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

(2000/C 225 E/222) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2730/99 by Gérard Deprez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Work-related deaths in developing countries

Is the Commission aware that every year over one million work-related deaths occur around the world and hundreds of thousands of workers are injured in industrial accidents? The number of deaths caused by work-related injuries is particularly high in the developing countries. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/197

Which projects aimed specifically at improving working conditions have been given support under the European Union’s development policy, and in particular under the ‘project cofinancing’ and ‘decentralised cooperation’ programmes?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

The Commission is well aware of working conditions in developing countries and the number of deaths to which they give rise. However, the Commission is limited in the action it can take on the matter, notably via development cooperation programmes.

Nonetheless, specific, targeted action to improve working conditions has been taken with the support of the Commission and Parliament under budget headings B7-6000 and B7-6430. The Community supported some 40 operations over the last two years, involving awareness campaigns on the impact of globalisation on the labour market and the concept of fair trade, and highlighting working conditions in developing countries.

For example in 1999 almost EUR 1 million was allocated under budget heading B7-6000 on activities organised by the Brazilian trade union federation CUT relating to health and safety and environmental protection at work, as part of a national campaign costing some EUR 2 million.

The Commission would also point out that in negotiating a new partnership between the Community and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, the parties will reaffirm their commitment to uphold basic standards set out in the relevant International Labour Organisation conventions, i.e. freedom to join a trade union, freedom of organisation and collective bargaining, elimination of the worst forms of child labour, and non-discrimination in employment.

(2000/C 225 E/223) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2739/99

by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Latina-Goodyear affair

Since 1965 the American company Goodyear has had a factory in the district of Cisterna di Latina (Lazio region). 560 workers are employed at the factory. Over the years, in the period during which the area was covered by the Mezzogiorno Development Fund, the company may have been granted funding from the public purse. Recently, Goodyear has announced that it intends to close the factory shortly because it is not profitable.

Can the Commission say:

1. Whether it considers it appropriate to ask the Italian government to find out if Goodyear, in the past, has been the recipient of public funds and, if so, how much funding it received;

2. Whether, in view of the employment problems in the area, the Commission considers that it should take steps to prevent multinational companies from abandoning production sites, as has been seen in recent years, once public funding ceases to be available, with no regard for the welfare of employees or the protection of the environment? C 225 E/198 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/224) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0279/00

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(3 February 2000)

Subject: Closure of the Goodyear plant at Cisterna di Latina (Italy)

It was recently announced that the Goodyear plant at Cisterna di Latina is to be closed, with the loss of 560 direct jobs and a similar number of indirect jobs. The closure, which is likely to cause a serious crisis in an area which is already experiencing difficulties, is claimed to come as a result of ‘excess production capacity’ and ‘competition in the European tyre industry as a whole’. Since 1965, Goodyear has benefited from a large number of incentives provided by the Community and the national authorities, in the form of tax relief and subsidies.

Given the above, would the Commission state whether:

1. the decision to close the plant is not in breach of Council Directive 98/59/EC (1) of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies;

2. the failure to involve workers in joint discussions and consultations with the company’s management is not in breach of Council Directive 94/45/EC (2) of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council and the consultation of workers in Community-scale undertakings;

3. it has drawn up an evaluation of the application of the directive on collective redundancies and company closures and made proposals for effective sanctions in the event of non-observance, as called for in Parliament’s resolution on the restructuring of firms in the face of globalisation (B5-0185/1999), and whether such action is called for in connection with the Goodyear affair in Cisterna di Latina;

4. it would not agree that, as provided for in the above resolution, social clauses should be agreed with Goodyear with a view to protecting workers, given in particular that the company has other production plants in Europe;

5. it would not agree that account should be taken of the events at Cisterna di Latina with a view to the granting of any structural funds to Goodyear plants in Member States for the period 2000-2006, and that disbursement of such aid should be made dependent on medium-to-long-term commitments on jobs and local development on the part of that multinational’s management;

6. it would not agree that the economic justification for Goodyear’s decision should be properly assessed, given that the plan for 2000 which the multinational presented in Las Vegas on 20 January 2000 pointed to extremely good economic prospects and made provision for productivity increases and the consolidation of Goodyear’s market position, not least in Europe, and even for new acquisitions in the 21st century;

7. it would not agree that crises of this kind could be averted by means of arrangements under which workers hold shares in companies?

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16. (2) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2739/99 and P-0279/00 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/199

(2000/C 225 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2742/99 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Discrimination with regard to the right to the guaranteed minimum income in Luxembourg

On 29 July 1999 the then Commissioner Padraig Flynn informed the Luxembourg trade union federation OGBL that he intended to open infringement proceedings against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty on the grounds that the law of 29 April 1999 contained provisions which were incompatible with the right to equal treatment and which appeared to be in breach of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) on freedom of movement for workers, and of Article 43 of the EC Treaty.

The new law of 29 April 1999 reduced but did not abolish the minimum period of residence in Luxembourg required in order to be entitled to the guaranteed minimum income, a condition which places Luxembourg citizens at an advantage over citizens from other Member States resident in Luxembourg.

Have proceedings been opened as announced, and if not, what will the Commission do to ensure that Luxembourg respects the right to freedom of movement and complies with Community legislation in this area?

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

In December 1999, the Commission decided to issue a reasoned opinion concerning the provisions of Luxembourg law on the entitlement to a guaranteed minimum income which make the granting of this benefit conditional upon a minimum of five years’ residence in Luxembourg. In the Commission’s view, these provisions are indeed incompatible with the right to equal treatment laid down in Articles 39 and 43 (ex-Articles 48 and 52) of the EC Treaty and in Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1), to which the Honourable member refers.

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, pp. 2-12.

(2000/C 225 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/99 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Possible breach of Community law

Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (1), imposes on manufacturers the obligation to set up, apply and maintain quality systems, as set out in the Directive, extending right up to the time of placing on the market. However, Decision E 3/833/22-6-99 of the Ministry for Health and Welfare (Government Journal Issue 1329/B/29-6-99) extended manufacturers’ obligations, in contravention of the above-mentioned Directive 93/42, to firms trading in such goods and even made their certification compulsory no later than one year from the publication of the ministerial decision referred to above, i.e. by 30 June 2000.

In the light of the above, could the Commission say:

whether this is a breach of European law, and

what action it intends to take against the Greek Government to eliminate the adverse consequences of the above-mentioned provision?

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1. C 225 E/200 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

The Commission knows nothing about the Greek Ministerial Decision mentioned by the Honourable Member, which extends to distributors the obligations on manufacturers imposed by Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. It will take the necessary steps to obtain full information on the matter raised and, if necessary, will not hesitate to initiate infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(2000/C 225 E/227) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2752/99 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Fixing of book prices

The Commission is considering a complaint about the German-Austrian agreement on the fixing of book prices.

I would therefore like to ask the Commission:

1. Does it believe that, given the protective function which competition is meant to perform, the current cross-border fixing of book prices complies with the requirement that the European Union contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States (Article 151 of the EC Treaty) and that this requirement should be rated higher than problems connected with competition law?

2. If not, does it consider national arrangements for the fixing of book prices which include a set of rules that take account of reimports to be compatible with Community law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

In 1993 German and Austrian publishers notified the Commission of cross-border arrangements for the fixing of book prices in Germany and Austria. Following this notification, various complaints were lodged against the said arrangements. With a view to adopting a decision, the Commission carried out a wide- ranging investigation into the book business in the Member States over a number of years. Various sources were consulted, including publishers and booksellers in Germany and Austria, and a market analysis was conducted. In the course of the investigation, the notifying parties and the complainants in the current proceedings were also able to submit extensive information about the situation on the book market in the Community.

The Commission has not yet completed its analysis of the cases in question and will not therefore anticipate its decision in the current proceedings. It can nevertheless answer the general questions raised by the Honourable Member.

1. The Commission would point out that any decision it adopts can be taken only within the legal framework laid down by the EC Treaty, as interpreted by the Community courts. Within that framework, when it comes to examining cross-border book price-fixing systems, the relevant provisions in force are those laid down in Article 81 (formerly Article 85) et seq. of the EC Treaty and the cultural clause in Article 151(4) (formerly Article 128(4)) of the EC Treaty. They permit a thorough case-by-case analysis in which all the relevant factors, including cultural factors, can be taken into account. The decisions that the Commission has already taken in this area and the related case law (1) are illustrative of this approach.

Pursuant to Article 151(4) of the EC Treaty, the Commission is required to take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of the EC Treaty in order, among other things, to respect and promote the wide variety of cultures existing in the Community. When the Commission applies the EC 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/201

Treaty rules on competition, it therefore considers, in a positive spirit, whether an agreement or a practice has cultural objectives and contains cultural provisions which are actually put into practice and may justify imposing restrictions on competition commensurate with the objectives in mind. These questions are considered with a view to the possible application of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty, which lays down that the Commission may exempt restrictive agreements or practices the advantages of which outweigh the disadvantages as regards consumers, provided that they simply impose the restrictions indispensable to the attainment of their objectives and do not eliminate competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question. The Commission also takes account of any alterations which the parties may make to such agreements or practices. Cultural benefits may constitute advantages for consumers under this rule. Lastly, under Article 151(4) of the EC Treaty, a cross-border book price-fixing agreement cannot be exempted unless the agreement or practice in question satisfies all the conditions laid down in Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty, and this presupposes, among other things, that the cultural benefits adduced are clearly shown to exist.

2. National arrangements for fixing book prices may be based on national legislation or on agreements between companies, in this case between publishers and booksellers. Different provisions of the EC Treaty apply to these two possible approaches. Legislation-based systems have to be examined in the light of Article 28 (the former Article 30), whereas agreements between companies have to be compatible with Article 81. In both cases, of course, the past rulings of the Court of Justice must be followed.

Where arrangements based on legislation are concerned, any Member State may adopt such legislation provided it is compatible with the principle of the free movement of goods as laid down in the EC Treaty. This is a matter for the national authorities.

In this context account must be taken of the Court of Justice’s judgment of 10 January 1985 in Case 229/ 83 Leclerc v Au blé vert (1985 ECR 1), where the Court ruled that in the context of national legislation fixing the price of books, Article 28 of the Treaty prohibited ‘provisions requiring the retail price fixed by the publisher to be applied to books published in the Member State concerned and re-imported following exportation to another Member State, unless it is established that those books were exported for the sole purpose of re-importation in order to circumvent the legislation in question’.

National price-fixing arrangements based on agreements between companies are compatible with the Community competition rules if they do not significantly affect trade between Member States. In such situations Article 81 does not apply.

(1) Cf. the Commission’s decisions of 25 November 1981 in VBBB and VBVB (OJ L 54, 25.2.1982) and of 12 December 1988 in Publishers Association Net Book Agreements (OJ L 22, 26.1.1989) and the judgments of the Court of Justice of 17 January 1984 in Joined Cases 43 and 63/82 VBVB and VBBB v Commission [1984] ECR 17, of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 1992 in Case T-66/89 Publishers Association v Commission [1992] ECR II-1995 and of the Court of Justice of 17 January 1995 in Case C-360/92 P Publishers Association v Commission [1995] ECR I-23.

(2000/C 225 E/228) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2755/99 by Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE), Miguel Martínez Martínez (PSE) and Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Protecting jobs in the Carrier multinational company in Guadalajara (Spain) in the face of management plans

A delegation comprising the President of the regional parliament of Castilla-La Mancha, the regional secretaries-general of the CO and UGT trade unions and delegates from the works council at Carrier’s Guadalajara plant have visited Brussels in order to outline to representatives of the various Community institutions (Commission, Council and Parliament) their opposition to the closure plans drawn up by the multinational company’s management for that production centre.

If they were to be implemented, the plans would entail the loss of more than 700 jobs in the company itself and the indirect loss of several thousand more (a ‘jobs genocide’), which would have an enormous C 225 E/202 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

social and economic impact on the province and region, bearing in mind that Carrier is now one of the main industrial undertakings in Castilla-La Mancha. Furthermore, the closure plans drawn up by the firm’s managers appear all the more unjustifiable bearing in mind that the company holds a significant market share and has been extremely profitable.

The institutions in Castilla-La Mancha (starting with the regional government and parliament), the Spanish Congress of Deputies (in a series of declarations) and the citizens of Guadalajara, who have organised a variety of demonstrations, have all called for the closure plans to be abandoned and for production and jobs to be preserved.

Can the Commission answer the following: does it consider that Carrier should take account of all social and economic factors in relation to its plant in Guadalajara and respond to the demands of workers, trade unions, the general public and institutions and withdraw its closure plans? will it take the appropriate steps and approach Carrier to that end? does it know whether Carrier has received any state or European aid which would oblige it to act to protect jobs? can it say whether Carrier has complied in this process with the directives on the information and consultation of bodies representing workers and labour organisations? does it take the view that this case, or the earlier Michelin case, strengthen the European Parliament’s proposals on relocations aimed at preventing socially irresponsible business decisions?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (2 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 225 E/229) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2765/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Raffaele Fitto (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) and Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission (18 January 2000)

Subject: The case of Silvia Baraldini payment of a fine

Is the President of the Commission aware of the case concerning the payment, by the Italian Government which at the time was led by Mr Prodi himself, of the $50 000 fine imposed on Silvia Baraldini?

Apart from the fact that this is an exceptionally serious matter, it should be pointed out that: under formal authorisation from an entire Directorate-General of the ministry concerned, the budget of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was manipulated, without reasons and purposes being given; the Italian 1997 Finance Act a fundamental State law, comprising as it does the sum total of each individual ministry coming under Tables A and B thereof was manipulated.

What is the Commission’s view of this matter, which involved a Member State and the United States?

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

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/203

(2000/C 225 E/230) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2772/99 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Dumping of BSE contaminated waste by-products

I have received reports that a review of the proposed Animal Waste Directive 90/667 (1) could allow the dumping of BSE contaminated waste by-products in landfill sites in Ireland. Is EU legislation authorising this landfilling, and if that is the case what studies have been carried out to prove that this does not pose any risk. Is there any specific regulation on the handling of BSE contaminated waste (such as classification as hazardous substance)?

(1) OJ L 363, 27.12.1990, p. 51.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Commission Decision 97/534/EC of 30 July 1997 on the prohibition of the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) (1) and Commission Decision 97/272/EC of 23 April 1998 on epidemio-surveillance for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Decision 94/474/EC (2) allow, by way of derogation from the general rules, specified risk material and animals which have died of TSE to be buried without prior treatment in accordance with specific conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of Directive 90/667/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin and amending Directive 90/425/EEC. In particular, according to this Article, the authorities of the Member States may, where necessary, decide that such animal waste must be disposed of by burial.

Following the international scientific conference on animal meal and the public consultation on meat-and- bone meal launched by the Commission in 1997 and in the light of the new scientific opinions recently adopted by the scientific steering committee, a draft proposal establishing new rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste has been prepared in the form of a working document. This working document takes account of the various options for the disposal of animal waste including from animals in which BSE is suspected or confirmed. On the basis of this working document, the submission of a proposal to the Council and to the Parliament is scheduled by June 2000.

(1) OJ L 216, 8.8.1997, as last amended by Council Decision 1999/881/EC, OJ L 331, 23.12.1999. (2) OJ L 122, 24.4.1998.

(2000/C 225 E/231) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2773/99 by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) and Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Commission staff recruitment

There has been a vacant post for an A5 official at the Commission’s office in Athens for the past six months. Although there has been a large number of applications more than twenty no-one has been appointed.

Have all the applicants been deemed unsuitable for a simple A5 post?

Is something else going on, unbeknown to mere mortals?

Why does the Commission persist in not filling the advertised post? C 225 E/204 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

A grade A post for the Commission Office in Athens has been published. Publication was in abeyance pending completion of the restructuring of the Press and Communication Service, to which the Offices in the Member States have reported since 1 October 1999. Since the restructuring is progressing steadily, the post will be published again shortly and filled as soon as possible.

(2000/C 225 E/232) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2775/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Consolidation of the tourist guide profession in Greece

Greece has to date had no mechanism for certifying the tourist guide profession or for setting conditions for the issuing of a special card certifying that the holder is a tourist guide.

Talks have recently begun between the parties concerned and the government over the introduction of a bill setting conditions for the recognition of this profession, and it would help facilitate the dialogue if the Commission could answer the following questions:

1. Does it consider confirmation from the employer alone to be sufficient justification for the issuing of a special card certifying the holder as a professional tourist guide, when there may be more convincing documents proving the exercise of the profession, such as the individual’s tax return or the registers of the approved association of those trained in the field to date?

2. Does it consider it essential for the bill to take account of the conditions referred to in Article 7 of Directive 75/368/EEC (1), such as two years’ previous service?

3. For the recognition of professional training, is it considered essential for training certificates to be validated by a State department or a professional association, or is a simple certificate of attendance of relevant training sufficient?

(1) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975, p. 22.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

Only the courier profession is in fact covered by Council Directive 75/368/EEC of 16 June 1975 on measures to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of various activities (ex ISIC Division 01 to 85) and, in particular, transitional measures in respect of those activities (1). The Directive excludes the tourist guide profession which, depending on the level of training required in the different Member States, is covered either by Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (2) or by Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (3).

The Commission can give the following answers to the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member about provisions to be included in the bill setting conditions for the recognition of the tourist guide profession in Greece.

Firstly, it should be noted that each Member State can choose whether to regulate a profession in its own country or not. In addition, the rules which apply to nationals who have acquired their professional qualification in this Member State are outside Community law and at the discretion of the Member State. Consequently the Directive applies only to Community nationals who have acquired their professional qualification in a Member State other than the one where they intend to exercise their profession. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/205

Article 9 of Directive 75/368/EEC states that proof that the conditions laid down in Article 5 and Article 7(1) (concerning the nature and length of the activity exercised by the person concerned in their Member State of origin) are satisfied shall be established by a certificate issued by the competent authority or body in the Member State of origin or Member State from which the person comes. The Commission considers that ‘competent authority or body in the Member State of origin’ means a State authority or a body which has been delegated powers by this State authority. Depending on the Member State, this could be ministries, prefects or chambers of commerce. In the Commission’s opinion, confirmation from the employer alone is not sufficient, unless the employer is actually the body which has been delegated powers by the State authority. Similarly, an individual’s tax return would not be sufficient proof under Directive 75/368/EEC as this is a purely unilateral act by the migrant.

According to the latest information given to the Commission, the current authorities in Greece which are competent to issue these certificates are the prefects, in accordance with Presidential decree 33/1993.

The Commission considers it essential that, for migrant professionals, the national law transposing Directive 75/368/EEC includes the criteria referred to in Article 7, allowing nationals of other Member States to take up or pursue a career as a courier. Moreover, following the adoption of Directive 1999/42/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism for the recognition of qualifications in respect of the professional activities covered by the Directives on liberalisation and transitional measures and supplementing the general systems for the recognition of qualifications (4), nationals of other Member States will also be able to have their diplomas and other training certificates recognised, which they have acquired in their Member State of origin or in the Member State from which they come, according to the principles which govern the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications (Article 3 of Directive 1999/42/EC). There are also good grounds for giving migrants this possibility in the national transposing law.

The certificate referred to in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 75/368/EEC which testifies to the vocational training undertaken by the migrant must be ‘recognised by the State or regarded by the competent professional or trade body as fully satisfying its requirements’. Directive 75/368/EEC does not give a precise definition of the term ‘certificate’ and there is nothing to indicate that the training undertaken by the migrant has to have been subject to an evaluation. Moreover, as it is the Member States’ responsibility to organise training courses, the Commission considers that it is up to the competent professional body of the Member State of origin to decide whether a course attendance certificate is sufficient or not.

(1) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975. (2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. (3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. (4) OJ L 201, 31.7.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/233) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2778/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Failure to maintain current job levels at a subsidised plant owned by pasta-producer MISKO

MISKO, the pasta-producing subsidiary of the Italian company Barilla, has received funding under Greek development law 1892/90 to set up a new production plant at Thiva on condition that it maintains the present number of 275 permanent jobs. Before completing construction of the new plant, the company closed down its pasta factory in Patras, compelling the current workforce either to resign or agree to being transferred to other company plants. However, the company has not informed those workers who agree to a transfer of the exact place or starting-date of their employment, the type of work, level of pay or the cost of relocating. It did not even inform them of where they would be employed after the closure of the Patras factory which occurred on 10 September 1999 until the new plant was opened at Thiva. C 225 E/206 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Since the company’s decision to close down the Patras factory is in breach of the requirement to maintain the present number of jobs and was taken without prior consultation of the workers, which is expressly prescribed by Directive 94/45 (1):

Will the Commission say:

1. whether it will check that the company has complied with the condition of maintaining the present number of jobs in receiving subsidies for its new plant, and

2. whether it will examine whether there has been compliance with the provisions laid down in Directive 94/45 concerning the obligation to inform, consult and negotiate with the workers, and the participation of the MISKO workers’ union in the European Works Council of Barilla, MISKO’s parent company?

(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

(2000/C 225 E/234) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2779/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Assistance for MISKO company workers forced to relocate

MISKO, the pasta-producing subsidiary of the Italian company Barilla, has received funding under Greek development law 1892/90 to set up a new production plant at Thiva on condition that it maintains the present number of 275 permanent jobs. Before completing construction of the new plant, the company closed down its pasta factory in Patras, compelling the current workforce either to resign or agree to being transferred to other company plants. The workers who agree to be transferred, however, are faced with an expensive relocation bill and they are therefore forced to leave their jobs and run the risk of remaining unemployed.

Is it possible to assist these workers to cover the expense of their enforced relocation? Which programmes and procedures may be used to provide such assistance?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2778/99 and E-2779/99 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 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 225 E/235) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2790/99 by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Research projects on healthcare systems within the fifth framework-programme

The deadline for submitting research projects (Call Identifier: 1999/C/ 64/13) on healthcare systems within the fifth research framework-programme was 15 November 1999. The projects submitted include several assessing non-conventional medicines (Research Programme 1.1.1. Thematic priority 1.1.1.-10.1- (i)(ii)(iii) Public Health research, Health Services Research and Health and Safety/evaluation of the effectiveness of non conventional therapies). 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/207

Proper and objective assessment of research projects is normally made with the help of experts who are specialists in the research field concerned.

Can the Commission tell me whether the experts assessing the quality of the research projects on each of the disciplines concerned (homeopathy, osteopathy, etc.) have already been appointed?

If not, can the Commission tell me when they will be, and what objective criteria and what procedure will be employed in appointing these experts?

Can the Commission tell me how many projects it has received, and the disciplines concerned?

Is the budget earmarked for these projects adequate?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

In response to the call for proposals (1) for the specific research programme ‘Quality of life and management of living resources’ (2), some 600 projects of a generic nature were submitted by 15 November 1999, three of which related to non-conventional medecines.

The proposals will be evaluated by independent experts in January 2000. As stated in the Vade Mecum for Experts Taking Part in Proposal Evaluation (www.cordis.lu/life), each proposal will be evaluated by at least 4 independent experts. All the experts are selected from the Commission’s ‘expert’ database, which is set up through a call for applications. They are chosen for their scientific expertise in the areas of activity of the work programme. The names of the experts taking part in the evaluation will be published once all the decisions relating to the call for proposals have been taken.

A budget of € 86 million has been allocated for these generic activities. Given that the overall Community contribution requested for the 600 proposals submitted will be over € 900 million, the selection rate will probably be approximately 1 out of 10.

(1) OJ C 64, 6.3.1999. (2) OJ L 64, 12.3.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/236) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2791/99 by Luís Queiró (UEN) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: German contravention of competition rules

In the last few weeks we have witnessed two instances of government intervention in the economic activity of an EU Member State, namely Germany.

The first intervention was to prevent the imminent bankruptcy of the Philip Holzmann company, and saw public funding to the value of DEM 257 million (EUR 127,8 million) being granted.

The second intervention came when the German government opposed the hostile take-over bid for the Mannesmann company by the British Vodafone Air Touch company, and called for the establishment of rules to impeded such operations, on the grounds that there is a need to prevent ‘culture clashes’ between differently-conceived models of capitalism.

1. Do the German government’s interventions constitute market operations?

2. Were the interventions made without prior authorisation from the Commission? C 225 E/208 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

3. Are Community competition rules, which the Commission is responsible for promoting and defending, being flaunted or not?

4. Is firm and punctilious Commission intervention called for here, as it was when the Portuguese government opposed the Champalimaud/Santander Central Hispano agreement?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

Vodafone Airtouch’s hostile take-over bid for the German company Mannesmann will be assessed in accordance with Community competition rules and specifically under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/ 89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) as amended, the merger regulation. This is the rule for all merger cases dealt with by the Commission.

The merger regulation would allow the German government to block the merger between Vodafone Airtouch and Mannesmann if there were reasons of public security, plurality of the media and prudential rules. However, if the German government were to find any other public interest being infringed by the operation, this would have to be communicated to the Commission.

After a preliminary examination of the notified aid to Holzmann on the basis of the Guidelines on State Aid for Rescuing and Restructuring Firms in Difficulty 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. The Honourable Member can be assured that the case is being carefully scrutinised.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, as amended OJ L 40, 13.2.1998.

(2000/C 225 E/237) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2792/99 by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Targeting of development cooperation projects for implementation in Nicaragua

Some evaluations of development cooperation projects in Nicaragua funded by EU Member States have drawn attention to the fact that, in addition to the poorest sections of the population, projects also benefited individuals close to the government and businesses owned by such people. Moreover, projects have been concentrated in areas where support for the current government was strongest, irrespective of whether there was a greater need for them elsewhere.

Have similar problems occurred with projects funded by the EU in Nicaragua and if so, what has the Commission done to overcome them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Commission-run cooperation projects in Nicaragua are subject to rigorous identification procedures to determine priority areas for intervention consistent with the needs identified and the objectives set. Hence Community aid benefits the local population of intervention areas that meet the criteria and objectives of the projects. To ensure that these principles are properly applied and that the projects are run as proposed and agreed, the Commission’s system for major projects includes European experts as part of a management unit whose mission is to ensure that Community aid is implemented correctly. Moreover, the existence of the delegation in Managua makes it easier to monitor activities and ensure increased control on the spot. This system has enabled the Commission to approach the Government of Nicaragua on a number of occasions to ensure full compliance with the terms of the financing conventions signed with the Commission. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/209

(2000/C 225 E/238) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2812/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: The Commission’s Office in Milan

Is the Commission aware that its representation office in Milan, located at 59 Corso Magenta, was found to be closed by a member of the general public who wanted to consult an Official Journal on 6 Decmber 1999, and that there was a notice on the door saying ‘closed until 10 December for the long holiday weekend’?

Can the Commission say what steps it intends to take to ensure that this kind of inconvenience does not occur again?n

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

The Commission Office in Milan was closed on 7 December 1999 (Saint Ambrogio, patron of the city) and on 8 December 1999 (Feast of the Immaculate Conception), both of which are official public holidays. The documentation service, open to the public Monday morning, Wednesday afternoon and Friday morning was closed exceptionally on Monday 6 December 1999, owing to a staff shortage. It was open on Friday 10 December 1999.

A notice was posted on the outside of the building on 22 November 1999 to inform the public that ‘the Commission Office in Milan will be open to the public until Friday 3 December 1999 and will re-open on Friday 10 December 1999.’

(2000/C 225 E/239) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2817/99 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Customs processing of T5 forms

After being stamped at the customs office of departure, T5 forms have to be forwarded to the authorities (Customs Service, Postal Service and/or intervention agency), although the exporters continue to bear full responsibility.

Will the Commission take steps so that responsibility for returning T5 forms is also transferred to the authorities and so that the loss of a T5 form in the authorities’ keeping is automatically deemed to be force majeure?

Will it require all intervention agencies to notify exporters of any missing T5 forms no later than three months after the export declarations have been accepted?

Will it take steps to require national intervention agencies to establish on-line computer systems so that T5 forms can be tracked down at any given time?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2000)

Where a control copy T5 is used to check the use or destination of agricultural products for export from the Community, the office of destination checks the use or destination provided for (in this case, exit from the customs territory) and must record, if necessary by keeping a copy, the data on the control copy T5 and the results of the checks carried out. The original is then sent without delay to the address stated on the document (the customs authority or intervention agency), after the necessary formalities have been C 225 E/210 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

fulfilled and after this has been duly noted by the office of destination (Articles 482(4) and 483 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 the customs code implementing provisions) (1).

Under these circumstances, responsibility for returning the original already falls to the authorities, and in the event that the original is lost after its return by the office of destination, the latter continues to be able to confirm that the goods have been assigned to their intended use or destination, by virtue of its record of the data and the results of the checks carried out. Even then, a duplicate can be issued if necessary, in accordance with Article 486(4) of the Regulation, annotated by the office of destination. In the Commis- sion’s opinion, therefore, there is no need to provide for ‘force majeure’ in such circumstances.

The Commission considers that the Member States are best placed to assess and decide whether it is appropriate for national intervention agencies to inform exporters of any failure to return the control copy T5 within three months from the receipt of the export declaration and whether it is necessary to set up a computer system for this purpose. It does not think it appropriate to propose the adoption of new legal obligations for the national intervention agencies.

(1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.

(2000/C 225 E/240) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2860/99

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Rheinfelden power station support for large hydroelectric plants

The Rheinfelden Rhine power station plans to expand its hydroelectric power output from 25,7 to 116 megawatts. This extension is to replace the old power station dating from 1898, which is in need of renovation. The changeover must begin by the middle of 2003, otherwise the concession granting the right to use the water will expire and with it the authorisation to produce power on this site.

Large hydroelectric power stations are not at present covered by either German or European schemes to support renewable forms of energy. The extension to the Rheinfelden hydroelectric plant which is needed would be impossible in the current situation. If for economic reasons large hydroelectric power stations such as Rheinfelden can no longer be built, the EU will have even greater problems fulfilling its Kyoto commitments to reduce CO2.

1. Is the Commission aware of the Rheinfelden case? Are there similar cases in other countries?

2. What is the Commission’s view of this case?

3. Does the Commission see any possibility that this case may be covered by the planned directive on support for electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2000)

The authorisation criteria for the construction or conversion of power stations fall within the competence of the Member States. The Commission is not aware of the specific issues concerning the Rheinfelden power station.

The Commission is in favour of developing hydroelectric power stations, but investment decisions are taken by the market participants with the agreement of the relevant authorities. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/211

The Commission is currently examining the question of including large hydroelectric power stations within the scope of a proposal for a directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal market in electricity.

(2000/C 225 E/241) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2861/99 by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Common VAT system eighth directive

In Question No 2083/90 (1), Mr Fernand Herman put the following question to the Commission: ‘In the United Kingdom, the Crown, local authorities and similar bodies can obtain VAT refunds on supplies of goods and services which they purchase, as well as the VAT paid on imported goods, provided these supplies or imports are not intended for activities which are subject to VAT (non-business purposes) or are partially exempt from VAT. This procedure, known as the ‘refund scheme’ is applied irrespective of whether or not the bodies concerned are liable to the tax. Does this procedure comply with the sixth VAT Directive?’

Why has the Commission only given a provisional and incomplete reply, without ever providing a definitive answer to the question?

Following on from my predecessor’s question, does the Commission consider that public bodies in other Member States can also benefit from this procedure and could ask HM Customs and Excise to refund VAT on the basis of the eighth directive for goods and services obtained in the UK on which local VAT may have been charged?

(1) OJ C 164, 24.6.1991, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The common VAT system provides that the Member States, regions, counties, municipalities and other bodies governed by public law are not normally considered liable to VAT on activities or operations they engage in as public authorities. Accordingly, no VAT is due on those activities or operations.

However, goods and services supplied by taxable persons to Member States, regions, counties, municipalities and other bodies governed by public law, as well as goods imported by them, are subject to VAT.

As they are not liable to VAT on activities or operations engaged in by them as public authorities, Member States, local authorities and other bodies governed by public law are not entitled to deduction of VAT paid on the purchase of goods and services. Of course, their non-taxable status also makes them ineligible for the refund, under the procedure provided for by the eighth Directive (1), of VAT paid in a Member State other than that of establishment.

To prevent VAT considerations influencing whether public authorities carry out certain operations themselves or privatise them, several Member States, including the UK, have introduced a scheme of total or partial refund of VAT paid by public bodies on purchases of goods and services. It is important to note that this entails a purely financial operation between different public bodies and is governed by the respective national policy for the financing of public authorities.

Consequently, such a scheme does not conflict with the sixth VAT Directive (2).

(1) OJ L 331, 27.12.1979. (2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. C 225 E/212 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/242) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2862/99

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Erika shipwreck

We cannot fail to express concern at the latest oil disaster which once again has struck the French coast. It is in fact our duty to provide citizens of the European Union with satisfactory answers.

Just as the Amoco Cadiz triggered off a reaction which led to the adoption of rules to prevent marine pollution, the Erika disaster should encourage us to look more closely at international sea safety standards, as well as the effectiveness of such standards and their actual implementation.

Many texts have been adopted by the European Union in this field (Council Directive 93/75/EEC (1)of 13 September 1993 concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods, Council Directive 94/57/EC (2) of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations and Council Directive 95/21/EC (3) of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control).

This legislation is intended to reduce the number of substandard vessels operating in Community waters and to improve human safety at sea and protection of the marine environment. However, it is inadequate since it cannot actually prevent substandard vessels from sailing in Community waters.

Does the Commission plan to propose more stringent rules in this area and to encourage international organisations to take a firmer line or even to ban vessels which do not comply with standards?

(1) OJ L 247, 5.10.1993, p. 19. (2) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20. (3) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern as regards the tragic outcome of the accident involving the vessel Erika off the Breton coast.

Quite clearly the Commission hopes that the enquiry will bring to light all of the actual causes of the accident and who is responsible for this.

However, that shipwreck has already revealed certain shortcomings in applying the international and Community rules on safety and the prevention of pollution. The Commission feels that the time has come to begin to think deeply about the means of more effectively protecting Europe’s coastline against accident hazards.

This is why the Commission has begun to prepare a communication on safety at sea and the responsibility of the flag and port states and of the industry, which should be debated within Parliament and the Council under the French presidency. The Commission intends to use that document to introduce a certain number of ideas and to suggest practical action, including tighter checking of hazardous vessels in Community ports and closer monitoring of the activities of the classification societies; examining the scope for banning access to Community ports by single-hull oil tankers beyond a certain date, following examples set by the United States; assigning greater responsibility to cargo owners in the event of serious pollution (those options are still to be explored, from voluntary commitment by the industry up to the adoption of binding Community legislation); and the setting-up of a database enabling all maritime-industry operators and the 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/213

public authorities to obtain a precise picture, in real time, of ship quality (this being the Equasis database which is currently being developed in close cooperation between the Commission and the French maritime authorities).

(2000/C 225 E/243) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2864/99 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission (18 January 2000)

Subject: Infringement of the ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive in Spain

The Spanish consumer association, the OCU, recently criticised the fact that, in the most recent Christmas advertising campaign, most Spanish television channels broadcast an average of 1 000 advertisements per day during the time slot given over to children’s programmes. Moreover, 5 % of those advertisements failed to comply with existing legislation.

The rules introduced by the amended ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive, which Member States were obliged to transpose by 30 December 1998 at the latest, included the following: television advertising and teleshopping should be readily recognisable from the remainder of programming; subliminal techniques and surreptitious teleshopping should be prohibited; advertising should not be inserted into current affairs, sports, documentary or other programmes unless they contained a natural break; transmission time devoted to advertising should not exceed 20 % of any given hour of programming; and advertisements should not contain material which discriminated on grounds of gender, race, etc.

The figures released by the OCU and the mere programming schedule of any Spanish channel confirm the apparent failure of Spanish television today to abide by any of the said rules.

In view of the aforementioned facts, is the Commission aware of the public criticism voiced by Spanish consumers?

Does it have figures enabling it to determine whether television channels in Spain are abiding by the rules in the Community Directive?

Does the Commission take the view that, since the Directive sets 31 December 2000 as the date on which it should submit its report on the application of the Directive in the Member States, it would be advisable to press ahead with the investigations into the state of play as regards enforcement of the relevant legislation?

Would the Commission be prepared to approach the Spanish authorities with a view to urging them to comply with Community legislation on broadcasting?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (22 February 2000)

Several complaints have been submitted to the Commission concerning the alleged failure of certain Member States to comply with Community advertising law. The Commission is currently assembling the data needed to determine to what extent the alleged irregularities constitute infringements on the part of the Member States concerned, with a view to taking the necessary corrective action.

In Spain, the problems notably concern the practices of certain broadcasters. An infringement procedure under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty has been mounted concerning Spain’s failure to comply with the advertising rules enshrined in the Television without Frontiers Directive (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 Parliament and Council of 30 June 1997 (2)).

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989. (2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997. C 225 E/214 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/244) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2866/99 by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: The elderly in the United Kingdom

While respecting the principle of subsidiarity in operation in the health sector, the Community institutions have a duty to see to it that Member States ensure a high level of quality in the services supplied to their citizens.

From this perspective, I would like to draw the Commission’s attention to the accusations, reported in all the Member States’ main daily papers, made by a well-known London doctor, who states that in some British hospitals downright ‘involuntary euthanasia’ is being practised.

From the serious allegations made it would appear that the situation is of the utmost gravity, with elderly people being left to die, deprived of the slightest assistance and even of food, to allow beds to be freed.

In the light of this:

does the Commission not think that the practices revealed constitute a brutal breach of human rights and that because of this they fall within the Commission’s sphere of authority?

What action does it therefore consider advisable in this particular case?

Does it not consider it essential to set in motion a thorough investigation in all Member States which would finally throw light upon the actual circumstances in which elderly people who are no longer independent live in European Union countries?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

It is for each Member State to organise their health systems as they wish, and to determine the conditions for entitlement to benefits under those systems. Therefore, although the Commission is not aware of the details of the press coverage cited, there does not seem to be an obligation arising from Community law that would be involved. Therefore it would be more appropriate to contact the United Kingdom authorities directly with any further questions on this subject.

(2000/C 225 E/245) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0006/00 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Recognition of Commission President Romano Prodi

Is it true that when Romano Prodi, President of the Commission, arrived at the royal wedding on 4 December 1999, the Belgian television French language service (RTBF) introduced him as the Prime Minister of Portugal?

If so, what steps will the Commission take to ensure that Belgian television recognises the Commission President in future?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

It is true that when Mr Prodi, President of the Commission, arrived at the Cathedral for the royal marriage on 4 December 1999, the commentator for the Belgian television channel RTBF referred to him as the President (not the Prime Minister) of Portugal. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/215

The Commission does not feel that this slip, which was quickly corrected, constitutes a major incident. Moreover, the Belgian television subsequently showed pictures of the President sitting at the table of honour not far from the Belgian Sovereigns and the royal couple.

The Commission endeavours to develop a communication policy based on transparency and the right of the citizen to be informed on Community institutions and the Union’s policies. In this, it cooperates fully with Parliament.

(2000/C 225 E/246) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0013/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Creation of a Greek service on Euronews

Since 1 November the news agency Euronews has been broadcasting in a sixth language, Portuguese. In his statements, the channel’s managing director has stressed that Euronews has the capability to expand its activities into other languages too.

Is the Commission looking into the possibility of the creation of a Greek service on the channel, so that the large number of Greeks and Greek speakers abroad who are interested in the broadcast of news in Greek could be kept informed?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2000)

The question as to the creation of a Greek service on the Euronews information channel is not a matter for the Commission but for the management of Euronews.

However, the Commission agrees that it would be a good thing for Euronews to broadcast in as many Community languages as possible. The fact that it now broadcasts in six languages is a significant step in the right direction.

The Commission will pass on the Honourable Member’s views during its contacts.

(2000/C 225 E/247) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0041/00 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 January 2000)

Subject: Extension of the dock at Escombreras, Murcia (Spain)

The Commission is currently examining the case for Cohesion Fund aid for the project for extension of the dock at Escombreras, Murcia (Spain) and the rehabilitation of Portmán Bay submitted by the Cartagena Port Authority.

This project has not been made the subject of an environmental impact assessment, despite the fact that it affects the Punta de Aguilones/Isla de Escombreras area, which is considered an important area for bird life by Directive 79/409/EEC (1), and is, furthermore, a threat to the underground vegetation (Posidonia oceanica) of the Costas de Calblanque, an area classified as a priority natural habitat by the habitats directive (92/43/EEC) and proposed as a location of Community interest (2). Virtually no attempt has been made to consider alternative proposals, and the official reports drawn up by the regional authorities and other bodies (3) have not been forwarded to the Ministry of the Environment for use in preparing the environmental impact statement. In addition, the regional authorities have failed to comply with Directives 85/337/EEC (4) and 97/11/EC (5), the national regulation on the same subject (6), and Regional Law 1/1995 (7) on participation in the transmission of public information and provision of information to the Regional Environmental Council. One of the key objections made by the above-mentioned bodies concerns C 225 E/216 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

the link between the rehabilitation of the Bay and an oversized infrastructure. Further, the rehabilitation project for the Bay has not been linked to environmental recovery in the Sierra Minera: this would have been a more coherent approach which would have permitted the judicious development of tourism, in line with the regional planning guidelines of 1995 (8). The EIB has delivered a negative report on the project (9).

Would the Commission not be prepared to allocate Cohesion Fund monies to the rehabilitation of Portmán Bay and environmental recovery in the Sierra Minera, rather than to any large-scale infrastructure project?

What action does the Commission take against the failure to comply with Directives 85/337/EC and 97/11/EC, especially as regards the failure to consider alternatives or to inform the public during the assessment of the project submitted by the Cartagena Port Authority?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure the protection of the Punta de Aguilones/ Isla de Escombreros area, including the underground vegetation of the Costas de Calblanque?

Does the Commission not consider that Article 6 of Directive 92/43 should be applied to all projects affecting this area? Does the Commission not consider that, in the wake of the disaster at Aznalcollar (Andalusia, Spain), it would be preferable to deposit and treat the waste generated in the area of this Bay on dry land?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1; the Commission has taken out infringement proceedings against Spain for failing to designate the important areas for bird life as special protected zones pursuant to the directive. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (3) The University of Murcia, the Association of Professional Biologists, the Spanish Institute of Oceanography and the National Museum of Undersea Archaeology. (4) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (5) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. (6) See Royal Decree 11/1988 of 31 November 1988, in particular Article 8. (7) See Regional Law 1/1995 of 8 March 1995 on environmental protection in the Murcia Region. (8) See the planning guidelines for Portmán Bay and the Sierra Minera, as adopted by decree of 26 May 1995. (9) The EIB’s report mentions three problems: the main beneficiary of the project is the owner of virtually all the land adjoining the bay; the extension of the dock at Escombreras is not justified; and the act of cleaning the bay does not guarantee that it will be totally pollution-free.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform her of the outcome as soon as possible.

(2000/C 225 E/248) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0054/00

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Review of Annex H of the sixth VAT Directive

Is the Commission planning a review of Annex H of the sixth VAT Directive? If so, when?

In its communication ‘A Common System of VAT: A Programme for the Single Market’ (COM(96) 328 fin) the Commission outlined a timetable for approaching the definitive VAT system. Given the fact that the dates mentioned therein have already been passed without any real progress on the matter, could the Commission indicate when it expects to be able to come forward with a proposal for the final system? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/217

Article 13 of the sixth VAT Directive stipulates that Member States shall exempt from VAT certain activities which are in the public interest, like welfare and social security work by charities, or services and goods provided by non-profit-making organisations with the aims of a religious, philanthropic, civic nature etc. However, these organisations have to pay full VAT on their inputs, which they cannot deduct. Consequently, these organisations are sometimes put in an even more disadvantageous situation than if they were taxable. Does the Commission agree that this effect runs counter to the spirit of Article 13 of the sixth VAT Directive?

Does the Commission agree that it should take immediate action with the aim of ending this situation without waiting for the definitive system to be installed?

Will the Commission, in its proposal for a definitive VAT system, make provision to exempt from VAT those inputs that are directly linked to the work of charities?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

The Commission acknowledges that the timetable set in the programme for a new common system of VAT, as set out in its communication of 1996, has not been kept to, as the Honourable Member points out, and that there is currently an impasse with regard to this issue. The 1996 programme proposed phasing in a definitive system, the first phase to be modernisation and more uniform application of the current VAT system, via amendments leading to the new common system of VAT. To this end, the Commission presented a number of proposals to the Council, but the latter could not agree on adopting them. In these circumstances, the strategy to be adopted for VAT must be reviewed with the full collaboration of the Member States. However, effective action on this issue is still needed in order to improve the functioning of the internal market. Such action might initially involve improving the current system of VAT, without this necessarily being seen as leading to a new common system of VAT.

Revision of Article 13 may prove necessary in modernising and simplifying the current system of VAT. However, it is too soon to say what specific amendments are needed.

Revision of Annex H, on the other hand, is not an immediate priority. Indeed it seems preferable at this stage to await the implementation by the Member States of Council Directive 1999/85/CE of 22 October 1999 amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the possibility of applying on an experiment basis a reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services (1). We will then be in a position to draw lessons from this experiment, which will be the subject of a detailed report by the Member States concerned and the Commission by the end of 2002. A more in-depth revision of Annex H might then be proposed on the basis of this report.

(1) OJ L 277, 28.10.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/249) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0055/00

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: BSE screening programme

How and when does the Commission intend to introduce a systematic screening programme for BSE, as has been in place in Switzerland since March 1999?

The BSE screening programme in Switzerland shows that the aberrant prion is much more widespread among cattle than was thought and that infected animals can enter the food chain. C 225 E/218 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

In view of the legal obligation to apply the precautionary principle, is not both urgent and necessary for the Commission to investigate this dreadful problem fully before any more food safety disasters occur in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2000)

As stated in my hearing before Parliament last September I consider that a systematic testing for BSE should be implemented. The Commission has initiated discussions with the Member States on the introduction of post-mortem tests for BSE with the intention to present a proposal to the standing veterinary committee before April 2000.

(2000/C 225 E/250) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0099/00 by Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: The situation in Croatia following the elections on 3 January 2000

In view of Croatia’s strategic importance because of its potential role as mediator in stabilising the region, and its pro-European attitude, can the Commission answer the following questions, in order to clarify the position it intends to adopt vis-à-vis the new government in Croatia?

Does the European Union intend to set up the consultative Task Force so as to speed up the preparations for closer relations between the Union and Croatia?

What approaches will the European Union make to the new Croatian Government, which has already shown itself to be receptive?

Will Croatia be granted full access to the Phare programme?

Will the European Union act swiftly to back the new political majority at this delicate transitional stage?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member’s views on the geopolitical importance of Croatia and its key role in stabilising the region as a whole. The Commission considers that the outcome of the election and the way in which consultations were held marks a new departure in the democratisation of Croatia. The new leadership’s statements and initial commitments are very encouraging. The Commission is sure that if the new government follows them up with action this new direction will quickly lead to the end of Croatia’s international isolation and hopes that the strong message of democratisation given by the Croats may serve as an example to other countries and peoples in the region.

The EU has already begun to give the first political signals of encouragement with a view to improving relations with Croatia and will show its willingness to cooperate with a fully democratic Croatia. The President of the Commission visited Croatia on 14 January 2000 and the Member of the Commission responsible for external relations plans to visit shortly. The Council (General Affairs), meeting on 24 January 2000, invited the new Croat Prime Minister to the next Council meeting on General Affairs on 14 February 2000 and decided to set up a joint Community-Croatia consultative task force, a technical body which will appreciably improve communication with Croatia and will be an initial instrument of assistance with a view to establishing closer relations between Croatia and the Community. The Council is currently discussing the mandate of this task force and will soon decide on the date of its first meeting. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/219

In terms of Community assistance, the Commission intends to conduct an evaluation mission in February 2000 which will enable it to identify needs and priorities. Changing policy on Phare assistance (which will in any event be substantially amended for countries in the region in 2000) and establishing contractual relations will depend solely on the attitude of the new government and its practical progress on outstanding political issues. The Commission is prepared to make the necessary proposals when the time comes.

(2000/C 225 E/251) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0102/00 by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Request for specific recognition of amateur sport

Sport has a social function and plays a role as an integral part of the culture of the Community countries, as well as having educational, social, cultural and recreational aspects recognised in the Amsterdam Treaty. It is necessary to bear in mind the way sport is organised in Europe, its characteristics and recent developments. A distinction is made in the Member States between professional sport (organised by businesses) and amateur sport (organised by non-profit-making organisations). Amateur sport, as practised in the Member States, must be recognised as such by the various national sports federations, in accordance with the standards drawn up by those organisations and in compliance with the directives drawn up by the various national Olympic committees in the Member States.

In view of the distinction between professional and amateur sport made by national laws and the regulations of the relevant sports organisations, can the Commission say whether it considers it appropriate to make an amendment to the Amsterdam Treaty recognising the specific nature of the sector of sport which national laws and the regulations of the sports organisations in the Member States define as amateur sport?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2000)

The Commission has recognised that sport is an essential instrument for social integration and education (1) in European society, and advocates a new partnership between the various actors in the sports sector sports organisations, national authorities and Community institutions in order to maintain and strengthen the social value of physical exercise and sport.

With regard to the way in which sport is organised, the Commission would stress that there are significant differences from one Member State to another. Not all Member States have legislation relating to sport, in addition to which the differences between professional and amateur sport are not always defined clearly and precisely. As Advocate-General Cosmas emphasised in his Opinion (2), the economic or non-economic character of an athlete’s activities should be sought in the elements defining the nature of that activity, and not in declarations by sports federations. It is therefore a matter for the courts, and not the sports federations, to determine whether a sporting activity is of a professional nature or not.

The Commission also considers that Community law already takes account of certain characteristics inherent in sport, especially amateur sport. It recognises, for example, the existence of activities of a specifically sporting nature which are bound by rules or the self-regulating powers of the sports organisations but are not subject to competition rules. For this reason, the Commission does not at this stage consider it necessary to amend the treaties in order to acknowledge the specific nature of amateur sport.

(1) ‘The Helsinki Report on Sport’: 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, COM(1999) 644 final. (2) Opinion of Advocate-General Cosmas in Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97. C 225 E/220 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/252) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0112/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Diversion of a high voltage power line in the locality of Merza (Galicia)

A 400 kv high voltage power line between Mesón del Viento in Galicia and the locality of Lindoso on the Portuguese border, which was included in an operational programme in Galicia for the period 1990-1993 and received funding under the ERDF, was diverted from the route approved by the Commission on the initiative of the publicly-owned company Red Eléctrica de España S.A. and following a decision by the Galician Government with the result that, counter to the project which was originally approved, it now passes through the locality of Merza, which has 800 inhabitants. The Galician Government’s decision, taken in 1996, is also in breach of EU regulations on combating the harmful effects of non-ionising radiation, which recommend that such power lines should pass through corridors which have no permanent activity or dwellings and stipulate that prior impact assessments must be carried out and that, at all events, compensation and expropriation schemes must be set up. Moreover, an action under the Leader programme is currently underway in Merza, which has been seriously affected by the existence of an unauthorised high voltage power line. Even though they have been approached on many occasions, neither the Galician nor the central Spanish authorities have taken the necessary measures to remedy this situation. Can the Commission report on the action it will take to remedy all the infringements of EU regulations which have been committed in Merza, thus giving its inhabitants the satisfaction which they deserve?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 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 225 E/253) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0116/00 by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Compensation claims from undertakings hit by lorry blockades

Is the Commission aware that as a result of strikes in one European Union Member State, undertakings in other Member States are being prevented from realising their export potential, which can damage their economic prospects.

What options are open to affected undertakings to lodge claims for compensation, and with whom?

In the case under consideration, a sawmill in Germany regularly operates to the limits of its capacity. The undertaking was prevented by the latest lorry blockade between Germany and France from exporting to France. It consequently had to cut back on production, because its fully loaded lorries were left stranded at the border. Output from current production could not be loaded. Additional transport and storage capacity were exhausted.

The lost business cannot be made good because the undertaking is working to the limits of its capacity.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 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 from 9 to 12 January 2000. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/221

The Commission would like to stress that it decided to implement the provisions of 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), in order to re-establish the free movement of goods as quickly as possible and hence limit the damage to Community operators.

On 10 January 2000, therefore, under Article 3 of this Regulation, the Commission requested the French authorities to provide information about the measures they had taken to re-establish the free movement of goods.

In their reply of 12 January 2000, the French authorities informed the Commission about the range of measures they had taken. They also stated that, in order to protect the interests of EU nationals who might suffer as a result of road blockades, the French Minister for the Interior had placed particular emphasis on the measures to be taken by the public-order authorities to allow subsequent processing of any claims for compensation.

On this point the Commission would like to repeat that, in accordance with Community law, it is in fact the responsibility of the Member States to compensate operators whose rights under Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty may have been infringed.

(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.

(2000/C 225 E/254) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0127/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Exclusion of the Italian Council for the Disabled Relations with the European Union from the Italian representation on the European Disability Forum

Is the Commission aware that the Italian Government has appointed as Italy’s representative on the Disability Forum the National Council on Disability (CND), an association representing only 10 % of the disabled, yet has excluded the Italian Council for the Disabled Relations with the European Union (CID.UE), which, by contrast, represents 90 % of the disabled?

Does it not consider that both associations are entitled to be represented at European level?

What steps does it intend to take to reinstate the criterion of objective representativity for Italian disabled people?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

The European Disability Forum is an independent organisation consisting of European disability NGOs and national councils for the disabled representing each Member State.

The Forum works together with the Commission in implementing policies in favour of the disabled; its operating costs are funded by the Commission.

The decision as to the membership of NGOs and national councils for the disabled is a matter for the Forum, whose procedures, notably as regards affiliation, are governed by its articles of association and house rules.

However the Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern to ensure the representativeness of the affiliated organisations, in particular the Italian National Council. To this end the Commission will contact the Forum in order to clarify the situation as regards the representativeness of its Italian member. C 225 E/222 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/255) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0133/00 by Frank Vanhecke (TDI) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Commission support for staging political events

On 9 December 1999, a debate was held in the European Parliament between MEPs Dirk Sterckx and Frédérique Ries on ‘The press: Europe’s lukewarm lover’. Both speakers are members of the Liberal Group

According to the poster advertising the debate, the evening was supported by the Belgian Foreign Affairs Ministry, the EP’s Belgian Office and the European Commission.

1. What did that support consist of?

2. What criteria must political organisations comply with to qualify for such support?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

1. The event to which the Honourable Member refers did not receive financial support from the Commission. It was organised by the Parliament’s Belgian Office and the Movement Européen Belgique asbl, which receives support from the Commission to organise public debates.

2. The Commission does not finance political parties.

(2000/C 225 E/256) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0150/00 by Emmanouil Mastorakis (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Community Interreg Initiative

Despite the increase in Interreg funding for the period 2000-2006 compared with the previous period, efforts have clearly been made not to alter the list of Group A recipients, with very few exceptions, the obvious aim being to concentrate the funds as effectively as possible. However, the fact that exceptions have been made prove that there was a need to remedy previously existing injustices and omissions. Notable omissions from the list of recipients in Greece are the prefectures of Arta and Ilia and this despite the inclusion of neighbouring prefectures which could be regarded as falling within the same category.

Can the Commission show understanding in this matter and reconsider the possibility of including these two prefectures, which were unjustly omitted?

(2000/C 225 E/257) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0229/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Failure to include the Prefecture of Arta in the Community initiative Interreg.

It appears from information I have received that the Prefecture of Arta has not been included in the operational programmes announced by the Commission for part A of the Community initiative Interreg, despite the fact that the basic criterion for inclusion, namely the existence of external land or sea borders, is met by this prefecture, since the Gulf of Ambrakia lies at its southern extremity and is also part of the Ionian Sea. Will the Commission say what the situation is and whether or not the Prefecture of Arta will finally be included in the Community initiative Interreg like all the rest of north-western Greece? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/223

(2000/C 225 E/258) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0336/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Exclusion of the prefecture of Arta from assistance under the Community Interreg 2000-2006 initiative

The Commission recently forwarded a draft notification to the EU Member States concerning the Community’s Interreg 2000-2006 initiative.

From this it emerges that, although it meets the necessary criteria, the prefecture of Arta has not been included in a list of regions eligible for assistance under the cross-border cooperation arrangements (Section A), which will take up most of the funding.

Since this effectively amounts to discrimination against the prefecture of Arta:

1. Can the Commission give the reasons for its decision to exclude Arta from the list of regions eligible for funding within the framework of cross-border cooperation?

2. Will the Commission remedy this injustice against the prefecture of Arta and include it in the list of regions selected in its final draft?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0150/00, E-0229/00 and E-0336/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 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 225 E/259) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) and Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Discontinuing of train services between the Netherlands and Germany after upgrading of the Nieuweschans Weneer section of the TEN

1. Is the Commission aware that passenger rail services between Groningen in the Netherlands and Bremen in Germany have so far been restricted to three trains a day in each direction and that there has even been talk of cancelling the service, which would mean that there would no longer be any public transport between the northern regions of the two countries.

2. Is the Commission also aware that for years the main argument put forward in support of this restricted service was that the section of the line between the border localities of Nieuweschans (Nether- lands) and Weener (Germany, Lower Saxony) was dilapidated and single-track, as a result of which the speed had to be restricted to 30 km an hour in some places, and that the necessary repairs were not regarded as viable?

3. Can the Commission confirm that as from 1 April 2000 rail traffic on the border section of the track will be suspended for six months (and replaced by a bus service) so that this neglected line can at last be upgraded at a cost of at least EUR 16,5 million and the train speed increased to 120 km per hour, except on the swing bridge over the Ems between Papenburg and Leer, which is needed because of shipbuilding, and that the cost of the German section of the work is being funded partly with monies allocated to the trans-European networks? C 225 E/224 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

4. Does the Commission realise that the Netherlandse Spoorwegen (NS) have cancelled the Deutsche Bahn VT624 train used hitherto so that the new regional rail company NordNed can take over the service but that NooordNed has not has not yet come to any agreement on a subsidy with the Netherlands Province of Groningen and the German Land of Lower Saxony and that no application for a timetable for the winter period 2000-2001 has been submitted to the rail authorities?

5. What steps does the Commission intend to take to prevent a situation in which, as a result of the withdrawal of the two national railway companies involved and insufficient regional subsidies, passenger services on this railway line do not resume on completion of the repair work in October 2000, which would mean that upgrading the TEN link had been pointless?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2000/C 225 E/260) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0233/00 by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Restructuring of the group ABB Alstom Power

The management of the group ABB Alstom Power, which is the product of a merger of 30 June 1999, has announced that it is to undergo restructuring, involving job losses in some regions where the company has branches. The group ABB Alstom Power or the companies involved in the merger have benefited from Community aid. Will the Commission give details of the amounts and conditions involved and say whether this aid was conditional on jobs being created? Should it transpire that all the relevant conditions have not been met, will the Commission demand repayment of the aid granted to the group?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 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 225 E/261) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0235/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Educational priorities of the Portuguese Presidency

Following the publication of the documented Programme of the Portuguese Presidency, could the Commission clearly outline its interpretation of the stated aim to explore the idea of a European dimension in education?

How does the Commission envisage both its own role in achieving this aim and also that of the governments of individual Member States? 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/225

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

The Commission fully shares the priorities of the Portuguese Presidency in the area of education, which are part of the promotion of a Europe of knowledge based on lifelong education and training. The Commission supports, inter alia, the Presidency’s initiative to set up a new rolling agenda in order to give greater continuity and effectiveness to the Council’s work in the areas of education and training. It expects that this will increase the impact of the Community action programmes Socrates and Leonardo, one of whose main objectives is to strengthen the European dimension of education and training.

As far as the respective roles of the Member States and the Commission in promoting these objectives are concerned, it should be pointed out that the Community’s responsibilities in the area of education are clearly defined in Article 149 (ex-Article 126) of the EC Treaty. This Article stipulates that the Community ‘shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting [their] responsibility for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity’.

(2000/C 225 E/262) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0247/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

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

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

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

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

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

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible. C 225 E/226 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/263) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0304/00 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Delays in completing Cohesion Fund projects in Greece: biological sewage treatment and reorganisation of landfill sites in Thessaloniki

Work on two projects of importance for environmental protection and improving the quality of life of the inhabitants of Thessaloniki ‘Extension and completion of the Thessaloniki biological sewage treatment plant Stage II’ and ‘Reorganisation of a landfill site and survey/construction of a transshipment centre for Thessaloniki’ has been inexcusably delayed, while the Cohesion Fund financial package for the previous programming period (1994-1999) has already expired.

The above projects were among those financed from the Cohesion Fund since 1995 and should have been completed and operational in 1998.

Will the Commission therefore say:

1. what stage has been reached in the work, what the delays are due to and when the projects are expected to be completed,

2. what amount the Community contributed from the 1994-1999 Cohesion Fund programming period and whether the funds committed were sufficient to complete the projects, and

3. what measures it has taken, or proposes to take, to ensure that these projects are completed and properly operational?

As regards the Greek authorities’ commitments concerning the Thessaloniki biological sewage treatment plant, will the Commission say:

whether the quality of the water in the Thermaic Gulf is being monitored and, if so, by which body,

whether the relevant sewerage system has been extended, and

whether the industrial area has been connected to the sewerage system, whether there is quality control of the industrial waste, and from what revenue the operating and maintenance costs will be covered?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2000/C 225 E/264) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0391/00 by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Utilisation of Structural Funds in Italy 1994/1999

Recent statements by the Italian Court of Auditors have reopened the vexed question of the proper use of the Structural Funds in Italy.

According to the information available to the Court, Italy is still seriously behind in the implementation of the 1994-1999 programme. 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/227

Are reports to that effect accurate?

Could the Commission provide, as soon as possible, the most recent data at its disposal concerning commitments and payments by region and by objective?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2000/C 225 E/265) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0427/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Distribution by the Spanish Government of ERDF Objective 1 resources earmarked for Galicia

In his reply of 21 December 1433/99) (1) on the above subject, Commission Barnier said that, during the 1994-1999 period, Spain allocated to Galicia ERDF resources amounting to EUR 553,86 million. According to the information provided by the Commissioner, this is equal to 12,09 % of the total amount allocated to Objective 1 autonomous communities in Spain, given that Galicia accounts for 11,67 % of the population of those territories.

The Commission’s reply only seems to take account of the funds which the Spanish Government was allocated for direct administration by the autonomous communities. However, given that these resources only account for 45 % of the total amount allocated to Spain by the European Union, my question referred in particular to the use of the 55 % set aside by the Spanish Government for centralised policies which, in many cases, have nothing to do with Objective 1.

Will the Commission therefore state what proportion of the remaining 55 % of ERDF Objective 1 funds received by the Spanish Government were allocated to Galicia in the 1994-1999 period? To what extent will this information be taken into account in approving the Community support framework for the 2000-2006 period?

(1) See page 2.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 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 225 E/266) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0469/00 by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: European Union measures in the?le-de-France region

Can the Commission provide synoptic tables and comprehensive statistical information concerning the various aids and subsidies received by the Île-de-France and each of its departments for the period 1994-1999 from the various European funds (ESF, ERDF, EAGGF, etc.), from the EIB, from urban policy resources and other financial instruments and from other sources? C 225 E/228 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8.8.2000

Can it indicate the extent to which these numerous measures have affected employment levels in the Île- de-France region and give estimates or, if possible, precise figures, by sector of activity concerning the number of jobs directly or indirectly created or saved as a result?

(2000/C 225 E/267) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0470/00 by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Programmes, Community projects and European initiatives in the Île-de-France region

Can the Commission draw up an exhaustive list of the various European programmes and projects or Community initiatives of which the Île-de-France region is a beneficiary indicating to what extent by virtue of its associate status?

Can it also give a full list of European programmes and initiatives organised for the various bodies situated in the Île-de-France region, that is to say research centres, associations, universities, municipalities and other bodies organisations, indicating to what extent each of them benefit?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0469/00 and E-0470/00 given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 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 225 E/268) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0475/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Member State violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the consolidated Treaty establishing the European Community

Is the Commission aware that as of this moment more than 180 Members of the European Parliament have signed the following motion:

Mindful of the provisions of Article 3 of Protocol No 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) as amended by Protocol No 11 ‘requiring that no- one shall be expelled, by means either of an individual or of a collective measure, from the territory of the State of which he is a national’ and that ‘no-one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the State of which he is a national’, and mindful of the incorporation of those rights under Article 6 of the Common Provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the following undersigned Members of the European Parliament call upon the Governments of Austria, Greece and Italy to honour their Treaty commitments by restoring to the former royal houses of their respective countries full civil rights, including the right to enter freely without let or hindrance their countries of origin, without any further delay, and request that where such rights have not been restored by 1 January 2000 the European Court initiate proceedings against any offending state?

Given that under the terms of the Treaty there is no basis for discrimination against individual families, having regard to the provisions of Articles 39 and 43 of Title III of the consolidated version of the Treaty establishing the European Community dealing respectively with the free movement of persons, services and capital and the right of establishment, given that Prince Victor Emmanuel has not been permitted to visit his homeland for 53 years or his son ever to set foot on Italian soil, and given that although the aforementioned rights are not conditional Otto von Habsburg was required to sign away fundamental civil 8.8.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/229

rights before being allowed to settle in Austria, and following the Commission’s specific undertaking last week to monitor Treaty violations in Austria, will the Commission make a start on ending these blatant and long-standing violations of the Convention and European law by using the powers with which it is entrusted under the European treaties to bring proceedings against Austria before the European Court of Justice without delay, and, given the importance of upholding the treaties, send a copy of its decision to Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (28 February 2000) The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question P-2703/97 by Mr Florio (1).

(1) OJ C 60, 25.2.1998.