ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C 340 E Volume 44 of the European Communities 4 December 2001
English edition Information and Notices
Notice No Contents Page
I (Information)
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER
(2001/C 340 E/001) E-2665/99 by Yasmine Boudjenah to the Commission Subject: Restructuring of ABB Alstom Power ...... 1 (2001/C 340 E/002) E-0233/00 by Luigi Vinci to the Commission Subject: Restructuring of the group ABB Alstom Power ...... 1 Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-2665/99 and E-0233/00 ...... 1 (2001/C 340 E/003) E-2899/00 by Paul Rübig to the Council Subject: Theft of computers ...... 2 (2001/C 340 E/004) E-3684/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Amounts allotted under and implementation of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (Supplementary Answer) ...... 4 (2001/C 340 E/005) P-3693/00 by Matti Wuori to the Council Subject: Second annual report on the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports ...... 6 (2001/C 340 E/006) E-3957/00 by Nelly Maes to the Commission Subject: Rule of law in Romania ...... 7 (2001/C 340 E/007) E-3972/00 by Peter Skinner to the Commission Subject: WTO challenge by Canada to French Chrysotile Ban ...... 7 (2001/C 340 E/008) E-3989/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Swedish public procurement law in relation to EU directive ...... 8 (2001/C 340 E/009) E-4139/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Colombian jail release Tristan James Murray and Javier Nova ...... 9 (2001/C 340 E/010) E-0032/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Meat-importing Member States await official measures against BSE in meat-exporting Member States ... 10 (2001/C 340 E/011) E-0103/01 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the Commission Subject: Use of European Social Fund resources for the ‘Edunet’ project ...... 11 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 340 E/012) E-0105/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: The Swedish Government’s statements on its Presidency objectives: the problem of unemployment .... 12 (2001/C 340 E/013) P-0121/01 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the Council Subject: Kidnapping and illegal detention of Mr Tsiakourmas ...... 13 (2001/C 340 E/014) E-0222/01 by Nelly Maes to the Council Subject: Used depleted uranium in the EU’s rapid reaction force ...... 14 (2001/C 340 E/015) E-0248/01 by Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo to the Council Subject: Regulation of alcohol consumption on various forms of transport, particularly aircraft ...... 15 (2001/C 340 E/016) E-0257/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Council Subject: Right of Resale ...... 15 (2001/C 340 E/017) E-0259/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Council Subject: Right of Resale ...... 15 (2001/C 340 E/018) E-0261/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Council Subject: Right of Resale ...... 16 (2001/C 340 E/019) E-0263/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Council Subject: Right of Resale ...... 16 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0257/01, E-0259/01, E-0261/01 and E-0263/01 . . 16 (2001/C 340 E/020) P-0273/01 by Niels Busk to the Commission Subject: Transport of live animals by sea ...... 16 (2001/C 340 E/021) E-0282/01 by Reimer Böge to the Commission Subject: Beef imports from third countries ...... 17 (2001/C 340 E/022) E-0289/01 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Promeuro ...... 18 (2001/C 340 E/023) E-0314/01 by Daniel Hannan to the Council Subject: Working parties ...... 18 (2001/C 340 E/024) E-0362/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Xerox restructuring Commission meetings ...... 19 (2001/C 340 E/025) E-0363/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Xerox restructuring advance decision ...... 19 (2001/C 340 E/026) E-0366/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Xerox announcement about restructuring ...... 20 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0362/01, E-0363/01 and E-0366/01 ...... 20 (2001/C 340 E/027) E-0394/01 by Ioannis Marínos and Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos to the Council Subject: ETA terrorist operations ...... 21 (2001/C 340 E/028) E-0403/01 by Toine Manders, Ward Beysen, Graham Watson, Elspeth Attwooll and Ole Andreasen to the Commission Subject: Complaint about abuse of UEFA’s position ...... 21 (2001/C 340 E/029) E-0411/01 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Tax discrimination against leasing of staff from elsewhere in the Community ...... 22 (2001/C 340 E/030) E-0412/01 by Hans Modrow to the Commission Subject: EU action against BSE in cattle ...... 23 (2001/C 340 E/031) E-0420/01 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Testing for cervical cancer ...... 25 (2001/C 340 E/032) E-0422/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Council Subject: European interests in the Mediterranean ...... 25 (2001/C 340 E/033) E-0428/01 by Mauro Nobilia to the Commission Subject: Checks relating to the ban on the sale and use of animal feed containing animal proteins for ruminants .27 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 340 E/034) E-0429/01 by Raffaele Lombardo to the Council Subject: Effective and timely action to ascertain and combat the effects of the use of uranium- and plutonium- enriched projectiles ...... 28 (2001/C 340 E/035) P-0444/01 by Cecilia Malmström to the Council Subject: Human rights in China ...... 29 (2001/C 340 E/036) P-0481/01 by John Cushnahan to the Council Subject: Falun Gong ...... 30 Joint answer to Written Questions P-0444/01 and P-0481/01 ...... 30 (2001/C 340 E/037) P-0462/01 by Anna Karamanou to the Council Subject: Threat to peace in the Balkans and the rise in Albanian nationalism ...... 30 (2001/C 340 E/038) E-0463/01 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Council Subject: EU-Turkey partnership ...... 32 (2001/C 340 E/039) E-0466/01 by Ioannis Marínos to the Council Subject: Assessment of consequences of bombing Yugoslavia ...... 32 (2001/C 340 E/040) E-0473/01 by Lucio Manisco to the Council Subject: USA antiballistic missile system and global strategic stability ...... 33 (2001/C 340 E/041) E-0475/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Freshwater fishing in Ireland: European subsidies for unattained objectives in the field of tourism, fisheries and nature conservation ...... 34 (2001/C 340 E/042) E-0478/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Freshwater fishing in Ireland: restoration of a natural balance instead of a continuation of the extermination policy ...... 36 (2001/C 340 E/043) E-0485/01 by Elspeth Attwooll and Niels Busk to the Council Subject: State aid to support the fishing industry ...... 38 (2001/C 340 E/044) P-0504/01 by Chris Davies to the Council Subject: Transparency and the Council of Ministers ...... 39 (2001/C 340 E/045) E-0509/01 by Charles Tannock, Philip Bushill-Matthews, Den Dover, Jacqueline Foster, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Roger Helmer, Bashir Khanbhai, Neil Parish, Robert Sturdy and Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: The role of the Economic and Social Committee and the prioritising of expenditures within the European Union ...... 40 (2001/C 340 E/046) E-0511/01 by Karla Peijs to the Council Subject: TEN’s and the development of the inland waterways ...... 41 (2001/C 340 E/047) E-0513/01 by Olivier Dupuis to the Council Subject: Declaration of state of emergency and serious situation in Ecuador ...... 42 (2001/C 340 E/048) E-0524/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Council Subject: Discussion of EU staff’s financial conditions ...... 43 (2001/C 340 E/049) E-0533/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Italy’s investigation into Balkan syndrome ...... 43 (2001/C 340 E/050) E-0542/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Cat and dog furs ...... 44 (2001/C 340 E/051) E-0543/01 by Giovanni Pittella and Vincenzo Lavarra to the Commission Subject: BSE risks ...... 45 (2001/C 340 E/052) P-0552/01 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Council Subject: United States missile defence ...... 46 (2001/C 340 E/053) E-0573/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Infringement of Community law on cars belonging to individuals who move to Greece and to those temporarily resident in Greece ...... 47 (2001/C 340 E/054) E-0577/01 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Council Subject: Freedom of association in Bulgaria ...... 47 (2001/C 340 E/055) E-0582/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Aid to help research scientists set up in business ...... 48 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 340 E/056) E-0589/01 by Alexandros Baltas to the Council Subject: Duties imposed by Brazil on canned peaches ...... 49 (2001/C 340 E/057) P-0599/01 by Marit Paulsen to the Commission Subject: Freedom of movement for workers ...... 50 (2001/C 340 E/058) E-0603/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Council Subject: European Union statute for Member States’ capitals ...... 51 (2001/C 340 E/059) E-0617/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Council Subject: Defence budgets of European NATO countries ...... 51 (2001/C 340 E/060) E-0629/01 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Lisbon European Council and financial services ...... 52 (2001/C 340 E/061) E-0631/01 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Council Subject: Revision of the rules on the expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament ...... 53 (2001/C 340 E/062) E-0633/01 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Commission Subject: Deregulation of electricity ...... 54 (2001/C 340 E/063) E-0635/01 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Council Subject: Aid for Armenia ...... 55 (2001/C 340 E/064) E-0636/01 by Theresa Villiers to the Council Subject: EU funding to Yasser Arafat ...... 56 (2001/C 340 E/065) E-0642/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: The European Parliament and the proposed EU Constitution ...... 57 (2001/C 340 E/066) E-0648/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: Mad-cow crisis and the countries applying for EU membership ...... 58 (2001/C 340 E/067) E-0651/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Prosecution of citizens from the Veneto region for unlawful defence of a criminal act who showed solidarity with the group which occupied the San Marco bell tower in 1997 ...... 59 (2001/C 340 E/068) E-0652/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Common policy with regard to credit and loans granted at exorbitant rates ...... 59 (2001/C 340 E/069) E-0657/01 by Helmuth Markov to the Commission Subject: Operational programmes for the Land of Thuringia ...... 60 (2001/C 340 E/070) E-0660/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the Council Subject: Lisbon European Council and investment ...... 61 (2001/C 340 E/071) E-0662/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the Council Subject: Lisbon European Council and information networks ...... 62 (2001/C 340 E/072) E-0663/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the Commission Subject: Lisbon European Council and information networks ...... 63 (2001/C 340 E/073) E-0664/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the Council Subject: Lisbon European Council and the promotion of inclusion ...... 64 (2001/C 340 E/074) E-0666/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the Council Subject: Lisbon European Council and agreed indicators ...... 65 (2001/C 340 E/075) E-0668/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the Council Subject: Lisbon European Council and pensions sustainability ...... 65 (2001/C 340 E/076) E-0669/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the Commission Subject: Lisbon European Council and pensions sustainability ...... 66 (2001/C 340 E/077) E-0680/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Use of chemical weapons in Turkey and Iraq and the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy ...... 66 (2001/C 340 E/078) E-0682/01 by Emilia Müller to the Commission Subject: Inclusion of military areas in the sites notified by the Member States under the EU habitats and bird protection Directive ...... 67 (2001/C 340 E/079) E-0689/01 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: The situation in Angola ...... 68 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 340 E/080) E-0690/01 by Nelly Maes to the Commission Subject: Regional autonomy in Romania ...... 69 (2001/C 340 E/081) E-0691/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Council Subject: Situation in the Congo ...... 69 (2001/C 340 E/082) E-0772/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Council Subject: Peace in the Great Lakes region ...... 70 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0691/01 and E-0772/01 ...... 70 (2001/C 340 E/083) E-0696/01 by Eurig Wyn to the Council Subject: Suckler cow premiums ...... 71 (2001/C 340 E/084) E-0699/01 by Eurig Wyn to the Council Subject: UK involvement in the bombing of Baghdad ...... 72 (2001/C 340 E/085) E-0702/01 by John Cushnahan to the Council Subject: The Serbian government’s commitment to human rights and accountability ...... 72 (2001/C 340 E/086) E-0703/01 by John Cushnahan to the Commission Subject: The plight of defendants in Palestine ...... 73 (2001/C 340 E/087) E-0704/01 by John Cushnahan to the Council Subject: Human rights abuses in Pakistan ...... 73 (2001/C 340 E/088) E-0705/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Similarity of the euro logo with that of Thomas Cook and the claim for GBP 25 million ...... 74 (2001/C 340 E/089) E-0717/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: Stage reached in the approval of the Canaries tax AIEM ...... 75 (2001/C 340 E/090) E-0719/01 by Frédérique Ries to the Council Subject: Transnationally abducted children and the case of the Limet/de Brouwer children in Kenya ...... 76 (2001/C 340 E/091) E-0732/01 by Mogens Camre to the Commission Subject: Technical standards for mobile telephones to eliminate the radiation risk ...... 77 (2001/C 340 E/092) E-0733/01 by Roy Perry to the Commission Subject: Benchmarking in employment and education ...... 78 (2001/C 340 E/093) E-0737/01 by Roy Perry to the Commission Subject: Mobility of researchers ...... 79 (2001/C 340 E/094) E-0738/01 by Roy Perry to the Commission Subject: Mobility of students, teachers and trainers ...... 80 (2001/C 340 E/095) E-0740/01 by Gilles Savary to the Commission Subject: VAT on radiology equipment ...... 82 (2001/C 340 E/096) E-0743/01 by Giles Chichester to the Commission Subject: Budget Item A-3037 ...... 83 (2001/C 340 E/097) E-0745/01 by Michel Hansenne to the Commission Subject: The information society ...... 84 (2001/C 340 E/098) E-0748/01 by Nicholas Clegg to the Council Subject: Launching a case under the WTO’s dispute settlement procedures (133 Committee decision) ...... 85 (2001/C 340 E/099) E-0749/01 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: The role of the Commission’s Representations to third countries ...... 85 (2001/C 340 E/100) E-0763/01 by Mogens Camre to the Commission Subject: Tax on second-hand cars imported from other EU countries ...... 86 (2001/C 340 E/101) E-0765/01 by Bill Miller to the Commission Subject: Capital investment ...... 87 (2001/C 340 E/102) E-0770/01 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: The Commission’s criticism of the Irish government’s fiscal policy ...... 88 (2001/C 340 E/103) E-0773/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Cultivation of grapes to produce certain varieties of dried grapes ...... 89 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 340 E/104) E-0774/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Crisis in Turkey ...... 90 (2001/C 340 E/105) E-0776/01 by Luigi Vinci to the Commission Subject: Use of animal meal as feed in fish farming ...... 91 (2001/C 340 E/106) E-0778/01 by Raffaele Costa to the Council Subject: Recent statements by the Belgian foreign minister ...... 92 (2001/C 340 E/107) E-0780/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Government coalitions with extreme right-wing parties ...... 92 (2001/C 340 E/108) E-0819/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Coalition governments incorporating extreme right-wing parties ...... 93 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0780/01 and E-0819/01 ...... 93 (2001/C 340 E/109) E-0792/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Minimum requisites for environmental impact assessments ...... 94 (2001/C 340 E/110) P-0796/01 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the Council Subject: The workings of the Rapid Reaction Force ...... 95 (2001/C 340 E/111) E-0799/01 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Accurate earthquake forecast ...... 95 (2001/C 340 E/112) E-0802/01 by Peter Liese to the Commission Subject: Presentation of falsified Agrim import licences in connection with the release into free circulation of bananas from Central and South America ...... 96 (2001/C 340 E/113) E-0807/01 by Charles Tannock to the Council Subject: The operation of the Rapid Reaction Force ...... 98 (2001/C 340 E/114) E-0811/01 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Golf courses and water management in the European Union ...... 99 (2001/C 340 E/115) E-0812/01 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Black market in domestic animals in the EU ...... 100 (2001/C 340 E/116) E-0817/01 by Gian Gobbo to the Commission Subject: Situation of children in Romania ...... 101 (2001/C 340 E/117) E-0820/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Possible fraud in the use of ESF monies intended for training workshops run by the Confederation of Galician Businessmen ...... 102 (2001/C 340 E/118) E-0827/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Publication of limits on residues by the fifteen EU Member States ...... 103 (2001/C 340 E/119) E-0829/01 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Research into and further development of BSE tests ...... 103 (2001/C 340 E/120) E-0833/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Safety standards on passenger ships ...... 105 (2001/C 340 E/121) E-0834/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Council Subject: Organised environmental crime in European countries ...... 106 (2001/C 340 E/122) E-0851/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Budget positions of eurozone members ...... 106 (2001/C 340 E/123) E-0853/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Fiscal policy in the Member States ...... 107 (2001/C 340 E/124) E-0856/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Redeployment of staff ...... 108 (2001/C 340 E/125) E-0863/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Slaughterhouse inspections ...... 109 (2001/C 340 E/126) E-0866/01 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: State aid Ireland Public broadcasting ...... 109 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 340 E/127) E-0869/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Potato import quota ...... 110 (2001/C 340 E/128) E-0872/01 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: European works councils ...... 111 (2001/C 340 E/129) E-0873/01 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Incineration of hazardous industrial waste at the Outão cement works in the Arrábida Nature Park .... 113 (2001/C 340 E/130) E-0876/01 by Niels Busk to the Commission Subject: Food aid to Russia ...... 114 (2001/C 340 E/131) E-0881/01 by Elizabeth Lynne to the Commission Subject: Laser pointer pens ...... 115 (2001/C 340 E/132) E-0882/01 by Carlos Carnero González to the Commission Subject: Complaint regarding the construction of an industrial estate in a special bird protection area in San Fernando de Henares (Spain) ...... 115 (2001/C 340 E/133) E-0886/01 by Nuala Ahern to the Commission Subject: Data on quantities of depleted uranium stocks held in each EU Member State ...... 116 (2001/C 340 E/134) E-0890/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Socrates programme for the years 2000 to 2006 ...... 117 (2001/C 340 E/135) P-0902/01 by W.G. van Velzen to the Commission Subject: Take-overs of American companies ...... 118 (2001/C 340 E/136) P-0903/01 by Gunilla Carlsson to the Council Subject: Reception given to President Mugabe of Zimbabwe ...... 118 (2001/C 340 E/137) E-0906/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Workers’ health and safety ...... 119 (2001/C 340 E/138) E-0909/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Changes in Spanish legislation on the electricity industry ...... 120 (2001/C 340 E/139) E-0911/01 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Commission Subject: Cooperation in the construction of the third generation network ...... 121 (2001/C 340 E/140) E-0912/01 by Paul Lannoye to the Commission Subject: The Leader programme in St Hubert (Belgium) ...... 122 (2001/C 340 E/141) E-0919/01 by Rosa Díez González and María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Implementation of the Annex to Decision 647/97 (Support for persons with HIV/AIDS and combating discrimination) in Spain ...... 123 (2001/C 340 E/142) E-0922/01 by Reinhold Messner to the Commission Subject: Pedemontana Lombarda ...... 124 (2001/C 340 E/143) E-0923/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Public authorities’ use of incorrect conversion tables will encourage inflation when the euro is introduced 126 (2001/C 340 E/144) E-0924/01 by Jorge Moreira Da Silva to the Council Subject: Directive on renewable energy sources ...... 127 (2001/C 340 E/145) E-0929/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Transfer of Brix Knudsen ...... 128 (2001/C 340 E/146) E-0932/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Commission sponsoring of Generation Europe ...... 128 (2001/C 340 E/147) E-0937/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Publication of the Lowe report on the ECHO fraud ...... 129 (2001/C 340 E/148) E-0948/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Use of alkyphenols ...... 129 (2001/C 340 E/149) E-0950/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Use of Bisphenol A ...... 130 (2001/C 340 E/150) E-0956/01 by Luciana Sbarbati to the Commission Subject: Coastal erosion ...... 131 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 340 E/151) E-0957/01 by Lousewies van der Laan to the Commission Subject: Decision on setting up an Enterprise Policy Group (EPG) ...... 133 (2001/C 340 E/152) P-0963/01 by Philip Bradbourn to the Commission Subject: Vehicle registration plates ...... 134 (2001/C 340 E/153) E-0965/01 by Emilia Müller to the Commission Subject: Systems for monitoring food safety, animal feed and BSE tests ...... 135 (2001/C 340 E/154) E-0967/01 by Richard Corbett to the Commission Subject: Restrictive practices for sports equipment ...... 135 (2001/C 340 E/155) E-0975/01 by Graham Watson to the Council Subject: Stockholm Summit ...... 137 (2001/C 340 E/156) E-0986/01 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Normal funding of CAP and measures to eradicate BSE in Greece ...... 137 (2001/C 340 E/157) E-0987/01 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the Commission Subject: Threat of survival of cetaceans ...... 139 (2001/C 340 E/158) E-0989/01 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the Commission Subject: Unacceptable attitude of US senators ...... 140 (2001/C 340 E/159) E-0991/01 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the Commission Subject: Dangerous protein in maize ...... 141 (2001/C 340 E/160) E-0993/01 by Armando Cossutta to the Commission Subject: Lies by Commissioner Kinnock to the Committee on Budgetary Control ...... 141 (2001/C 340 E/161) E-0997/01 by Giorgio Celli to the Commission Subject: Projected construction of the ‘Torre Inserraglio Marína’ near Serra Cicora in the Commune of Nardò (Lecce) 143 (2001/C 340 E/162) E-1010/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: EU support for Spain’s finest woodlands ...... 145 (2001/C 340 E/163) E-1013/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: European digital literacy plan ...... 146 (2001/C 340 E/164) E-1016/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Publication of statistics in the US and EU ...... 147 (2001/C 340 E/165) E-1017/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Publication of economic statistics ...... 147 (2001/C 340 E/166) E-1019/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Unemployment rate and pay settlements ...... 148 (2001/C 340 E/167) E-1020/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Exports of goods and services ...... 149 (2001/C 340 E/168) E-1022/01 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Commission Subject: Relations between India and Pakistan ...... 149 (2001/C 340 E/169) E-1023/01 by Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos and Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Water shortage in Thessaly ...... 151 (2001/C 340 E/170) E-1033/01 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda to the Commission Subject: Destruction of Maytenus sengalensis plants in the Artos del Ejido Site of Community Interest, Almería (Spain) ...... 152 (2001/C 340 E/171) E-1040/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Spanish central government’s budget dogmatism, imposing a zero deficit by law on the state budget and on the budgets of the autonomous communities ...... 153 (2001/C 340 E/172) E-1042/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: Bombing of Iraqi territory by US and United Kingdom planes ...... 154 (2001/C 340 E/173) E-1043/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Commission strategy to encourage the mobility of EU workers in view of development and job-creation policies in the less-favoured areas ...... 154 (2001/C 340 E/174) E-1046/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Galicia’s integration in the trans-European transport networks by means of high-speed rail services .... 155 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 340 E/175) E-1051/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Transfer of footballers Free movement of persons ...... 156 (2001/C 340 E/176) E-1052/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Transfer of footballers Merchandising ...... 157 (2001/C 340 E/177) E-1053/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Transfer of footballers Training costs ...... 157 (2001/C 340 E/178) E-1054/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Transfer of footballers Solidarity fund ...... 157 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1052/01, E-1053/01 and E-1054/01 ...... 157 (2001/C 340 E/179) E-1056/01 by Pat Gallagher to the Commission Subject: Common fisheries policy Sea angling ...... 158 (2001/C 340 E/180) E-1061/01 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba to the Commission Subject: Reduction in JRC research staff under the proposal for the Sixth framework programme ...... 158 (2001/C 340 E/181) E-1064/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Coordination of the Sensus project ...... 160 (2001/C 340 E/182) E-1081/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Blurring of interests and distortion of competition with the Sensus project ...... 160 (2001/C 340 E/183) E-1083/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: The Sensus project: the European equivalent of DARPA ...... 161 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1064/01, E-1081/01 and E-1083/01 ...... 162 (2001/C 340 E/184) P-1069/01 by Harlem Désir to the Commission Subject: Infringement of Directive 91/308/EC on prevention of the use of the financial system for money laundering ...... 162 (2001/C 340 E/185) E-1073/01 by Stavros Xarchakos and Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Construction of Olympic Games facilities at Marathon Schinias ...... 163 (2001/C 340 E/186) E-1074/01 by John Cushnahan to the Council Subject: Forced labour in Burma ...... 164 (2001/C 340 E/187) E-1075/01 by John Cushnahan to the Council Subject: Allegations of police brutality in the Czech Republic ...... 164 (2001/C 340 E/188) E-1076/01 by John Cushnahan to the Council Subject: Repression of peaceful activists in Indonesia ...... 165 (2001/C 340 E/189) E-1077/01 by John Cushnahan to the Council Subject: Human rights in Iran ...... 165 (2001/C 340 E/190) E-1078/01 by John Cushnahan to the Commission Subject: Plight of the Turkish Kurds ...... 166 (2001/C 340 E/191) E-1079/01 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the Commission Subject: Commercial action for the storage of umbilical cord blood for obtaining stem cells ...... 166 (2001/C 340 E/192) P-1087/01 by Ulla Sandbæk to the Commission Subject: Discharge of pesticides and the sixth environment action programme ...... 167 (2001/C 340 E/193) E-1092/01 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Licensing of SSB radio equipment ...... 168 (2001/C 340 E/194) E-1097/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Violation of European Treaties by UEFA rules ...... 169 (2001/C 340 E/195) E-1101/01 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: The need for a level playing field in the road haulage industry ...... 170 (2001/C 340 E/196) P-1103/01 by Elspeth Attwooll to the Commission Subject: Urban Waste Water Directive ...... 171 (2001/C 340 E/197) P-1107/01 by Struan Stevenson to the Commission Subject: Health and consumer protection ...... 172 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 340 E/198) E-1113/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Geographical restrictions on assisted property purchase ...... 174 (2001/C 340 E/199) E-1114/01 by Carlos Carnero González to the Council Subject: Anti-homosexual measures by the Namibian government ...... 174 (2001/C 340 E/200) E-1123/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: RAI and political pluralism ...... 175 (2001/C 340 E/201) E-1244/01 by Francesco Fiori, Generoso Andria, Renato Brunetta, Raffaele Costa, Marcello Dell’Utri, Giuseppe Gargani, Giorgio Lisi, Francesco Musotto, Giuseppe Nisticò, Guido Podestà, Amalia Sartori and Stefano Zappalà to the Commission Subject: RAI (Italian Radio and Television Company) ...... 176 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1123/01 and E-1244/01 ...... 176 (2001/C 340 E/202) P-1128/01 by Daniel Hannan to the Council Subject: Lobbying for an EU superstate ...... 176 (2001/C 340 E/203) P-1129/01 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: ‘Naming and shaming’ to achieve environmental policy implementation ...... 177 (2001/C 340 E/204) E-1133/01 by Nirj Deva to the Commission Subject: Zimbabwe ...... 178 (2001/C 340 E/205) E-1146/01 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Environmental aggression on the island of Lanzarote (Canaries, Spain) ...... 179 (2001/C 340 E/206) E-1147/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: GDP and public enterprises ...... 180 (2001/C 340 E/207) E-1150/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Prices of farm products ...... 181 (2001/C 340 E/208) E-1152/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Use of identity cards ...... 181 (2001/C 340 E/209) E-1153/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Application of the common fisheries policy ...... 182 (2001/C 340 E/210) E-1161/01 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Implementation of the Bathing Water Directive ...... 182 (2001/C 340 E/211) E-1164/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Compensation for the transfer of football players ...... 183 (2001/C 340 E/212) E-1165/01 by Alexander de Roo, Gorka Knörr Borràs, Carlos Bautista Ojeda, María Sornosa Martínez and Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Secrecy in connection with 83 scientific reports on the Spanish Hydrological Plan ...... 184 (2001/C 340 E/213) E-1167/01 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the Commission Subject: Zimbabwe Resolution ...... 185 (2001/C 340 E/214) E-1169/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Pollution of the Mediterranean ...... 185 (2001/C 340 E/215) E-1171/01 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Mining in Sardinia and environmental impact assessments ...... 187 (2001/C 340 E/216) E-1173/01 by André Brie to the Council Subject: Disarming the UCK since the end of 2000 ...... 188 (2001/C 340 E/217) E-1209/01 by André Brie to the Council Subject: UNMIK’s crime statistics ...... 188 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1173/01 and E-1209/01 ...... 188 (2001/C 340 E/218) P-1177/01 by Sérgio Marques to the Commission Subject: Financial aid to Venezuela ...... 189 (2001/C 340 E/219) E-1181/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: The Single European Authorisation Project ...... 190 (2001/C 340 E/220) E-1182/01 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Construction of the El Pical wind farm ...... 191 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 340 E/221) E-1183/01 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Human rights in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement ...... 192 (2001/C 340 E/222) E-1187/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Work-related accidents in the European Union ...... 193 (2001/C 340 E/223) E-1188/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Techniques for detecting meat from animals fed on illegal feedingstuffs ...... 194 (2001/C 340 E/224) E-1189/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Economy-class syndrome ...... 195 (2001/C 340 E/225) E-1201/01 by Christoph Konrad to the Commission Subject: Harmonisation of minimum standards for personal protective equipment ...... 196 (2001/C 340 E/226) P-1218/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Council Subject: Integrated policy against crime ...... 197 (2001/C 340 E/227) E-1219/01 by Elisabeth Schroedter to the Commission Subject: New road bridge over the Havel river crosses an area protected under the Habitats Directive ...... 198 (2001/C 340 E/228) E-1225/01 by Patricia McKenna to the Commission Subject: Enlargement of Ferrol harbour (outer harbour) ...... 199 (2001/C 340 E/229) P-1232/01 by Carlos Candal to the Commission Subject: Restructuring the Directorate-General for Fisheries ...... 200 (2001/C 340 E/230) P-1233/01 by Kyösti Virrankoski to the Commission Subject: Investment aid to farmers’ joint undertakings ...... 200 (2001/C 340 E/231) E-1237/01 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Whaling on the Faeroe Islands (Denmark) ...... 201 (2001/C 340 E/232) E-1239/01 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Distribution of new cars ...... 202 (2001/C 340 E/233) E-1243/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Relations between the ECB and central banks in the eurozone ...... 203 (2001/C 340 E/234) E-1249/01 by Per Stenmarck to the Commission Subject: Competition ...... 204 (2001/C 340 E/235) E-1253/01 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Failure to comply with the Habitats Directive in the case of Posidonia oceanica in Valencia (Spain) .... 205 (2001/C 340 E/236) P-1262/01 by Simon Murphy to the Commission Subject: Proposed precious metals directive ...... 206 (2001/C 340 E/237) P-1263/01 by Eva Klamt to the Commission Subject: Attempts by non-EU nationals to gain illegal entry to the UK ...... 207 (2001/C 340 E/238) E-1268/01 by Richard Corbett, Baroness Sarah Ludford, Roy Perry and William Newton Dunn to the Council Subject: Respect of the Vienna Convention in Saudi Arabia ...... 208 (2001/C 340 E/239) E-1269/01 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Biological treatment of biodegradable waste ...... 208 (2001/C 340 E/240) E-1270/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Sale of films in packages (block booking) ...... 209 (2001/C 340 E/241) E-1271/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Privatisation in Eastern European candidate states ...... 210 (2001/C 340 E/242) E-1276/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Charter to protect the Alboran Sea ...... 211 (2001/C 340 E/243) P-1279/01 by Pere Esteve to the Commission Subject: Substitute for feedingstuffs containing animal protein ...... 212 (2001/C 340 E/244) E-1282/01 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Property taxation ...... 212 (2001/C 340 E/245) E-1287/01 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Taxation Policy Group ...... 213 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 340 E/246) E-1293/01 by Bernd Lange to the Commission Subject: Light fittings supplied without connecting terminals (EN 60598-1/A13) ...... 214 (2001/C 340 E/247) P-1303/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Employment rights for ministers of religion ...... 215 (2001/C 340 E/248) E-1308/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Official aid granted by the Valencian Regional Government to the ‘Terra Mítica’ theme park (Benidorm, Alicante) ...... 216 (2001/C 340 E/249) E-1312/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Freedom of information in Italy and Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ...... 216 (2001/C 340 E/250) E-1319/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: System of licensing radio stations in the Attica basin ...... 217 (2001/C 340 E/251) E-1325/01 by Arie Oostlander to the Commission Subject: 15-month prison sentence handed down to Mr Sotiris Bletsas for distributing information material financed by the Commission ...... 217 (2001/C 340 E/252) P-1327/01 by Gary Titley to the Commission Subject: Animal research at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre ...... 218 (2001/C 340 E/253) P-1329/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Attica regional operational programme and earthquake-protection projects ...... 219 (2001/C 340 E/254) E-1337/01 by Stavros Xarchakos to the Commission Subject: Dubbing of film soundtracks ...... 220 (2001/C 340 E/255) P-1347/01 by Diana Wallis to the Commission Subject: Rome Convention ...... 221 (2001/C 340 E/256) P-1362/01 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Council Subject: Human rights situation in Nigeria ...... 221 (2001/C 340 E/257) E-1363/01 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: The ‘beer tie’ ...... 222 (2001/C 340 E/258) P-1382/01 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz to the Commission Subject: Consolidation procedure in ‘Tröpolach’ ...... 223 (2001/C 340 E/259) P-1383/01 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the Commission Subject: Development aid in the form of State aid ...... 224 (2001/C 340 E/260) P-1410/01 by Rosemarie Müller to the Commission Subject: ‘Natural-style’ bathing ponds ...... 224 (2001/C 340 E/261) E-1413/01 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Tax discrimination against the employment of personnel leased from other parts of the Community . . . 225 (2001/C 340 E/262) E-1419/01 by Luciano Caveri to the Commission Subject: Fighting dogs ...... 226 (2001/C 340 E/263) P-1430/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Budgetary regulations applying to OLAF ...... 226 (2001/C 340 E/264) P-1431/01 by Bruno Gollnisch to the Commission Subject: Time-share holiday swindles ...... 228 (2001/C 340 E/265) P-1433/01 by Karl von Wogau to the Commission Subject: Variations in the conversion of amounts in DEM to Euros ...... 229 (2001/C 340 E/266) P-1444/01 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the Commission Subject: Management of the European Social Fund in the Canary Islands ...... 230 (2001/C 340 E/267) P-1446/01 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Non-application of Article 4(3) of Directive 90/220 ...... 231 (2001/C 340 E/268) E-1492/01 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Phthalates in toys ...... 232 (2001/C 340 E/269) P-1503/01 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: White paper on chemicals policy ...... 233 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 340 E/270) E-1528/01 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Pilot study by Eurostat ...... 234 (2001/C 340 E/271) P-1529/01 by Alexander Radwan to the Commission Subject: Assistance for areas along the borders with applicant countries ...... 234 (2001/C 340 E/272) P-1532/01 by Luciana Sbarbati to the Commission Subject: Safety at work ...... 235 (2001/C 340 E/273) P-1544/01 by Raina Echerer to the Commission Subject: EU regulation on unbundled access to the local loop situation in Austria ...... 237 (2001/C 340 E/274) P-1547/01 by Pierre Jonckheer to the Commission Subject: CN-101 (formerly GU-117) road improvement project in the Carrascosa de Henares area ...... 238 (2001/C 340 E/275) P-1567/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Corridor VIII ...... 239 (2001/C 340 E/276) E-1583/01 by Anne Jensen to the Commission Subject: EU-wide invitation to tender for church organs ...... 240 (2001/C 340 E/277) P-1593/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Funding for car-parks in Athens under the second and third CSF ...... 241 (2001/C 340 E/278) P-1665/01 by Juan Ojeda Sanz to the Commission Subject: Transport of works of art ...... 242 (2001/C 340 E/279) P-1689/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Validity of the tendering procedure for the privatisation of Olympic Airways ...... 243 (2001/C 340 E/280) P-1763/01 by Albert Maat to the Commission Subject: Ill-treatment of conscientious objector ...... 243 (2001/C 340 E/281) P-1770/01 by Mary Banotti to the Commission Subject: Pure antibiotic powder publication of research results ...... 244
EN 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/1
I
(Information)
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER
(2001/C 340 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2665/99 by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Restructuring of ABB Alstom Power
The management of the ABB Alstom Power group, which was formed in a merger on 30 June 1999, has announced a restructuring programme. In some countries where the undertaking operates job cuts have already been announced.
Have this group and/or its pre-merger constituent groups received any EU aid?
If so, could the Commission give details of the amount and the conditions under which it was granted? Was such aid conditional on job creation? Is the Commission prepared to ask for it to be repaid?
(2001/C 340 E/002) 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?
Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-2665/99 and E-0233/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2001)
The information received from the competent authorities in the various Member States shows that the ABB Alstom Power group has received the following Community aid. C 340 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
In Greece, the company formed part of a consortium carrying out a major energy-producing project at Komotini, which received part-financing amounting to € 72 million under the Community support framework for the programming period 1994-1999. The company also worked on a number of projects part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund under national aid schemes. These totalled € 36 million.
In France, the following aid was provided for staff training under Objective 4 of the Structural Funds during the programming period 1994-1999:
FRF 1 056 616 to the Alstom electrical machines company;
FRF 2 214 760 to the Alstom steam turbines company.
None of this part-financing was subject to conditions as regards the creation of jobs.
Companies in the Abb Alstom Power group also received funds from the European Social Fund (ESF) in 1994-1999 under Objective 4 ‘Preparing workers for industrial changes and changes in systems production’. In France this amounted to € 1 442 919, in Finland to € 44 107 and in Sweden to € 244 324.
In Germany, three training operations for some 220 partially unemployed workers in the ABB group took place; the amount programmed was € 929 000. However, the group itself did not benefit directly from ESF assistance.
The ESF contributed at the maximum rate of 50 % to a number of operations which were selected by a programming committee of which the Commission was not a member. To be selected and benefit from Community financial assistance they had to meet the general eligibility criteria laid down by the Commission and the specific criteria laid down by the Monitoring Committee. Checks on the eligibility and correctness of the operations were carried out by the Member State, in compliance with its obligations under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2064/97 of 15 October 1997 establishing detailed arrangements for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as regards the financial control by Member States of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds (1), the Commission or the Court of Auditors. In the event of an infringement, any sums wrongly paid were to be refunded.
The Commission would, however, draw the attention of the Honourable Members to the fact that regional aid for the initial investment and related job creation must now be made conditional, by the method of payment or the conditions attached to the grant, to maintenance of the investment in question or the job created for at least five years.
The Commission introduced this new provision at the end of 1997 in its guidelines on national regional aid (2). This condition, imposed by the Commission in its decisions on Community surveillance of State aids, is gradually being introduced into all national provisions on regional aid to firms, whether or not these include assistance under the Structural Funds.
(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997. (2) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.
(2001/C 340 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2899/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Council
(13 September 2000)
Subject: Theft of computers
It was reported on page 110 of the magazine ‘EURO am Sonntag’ of 16 July 2000 that:
200 computers have disappeared from the Council building in Brussels. The magazine goes on to quote Reuters news agency, according to which the security service is frustrated because security staff 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/3
are not allowed to check diplomats’ cars, even though some of those involved were transporting the stolen goods openly on the passenger seat.
Is the Council aware of the fact that more than 200 computers have been stolen from its building?
What will the Council do to put a stop to such incidents?
Will the Council allow the security service to check diplomats in future in order to cut theft?
Should the Council not demand better protection for the institutions on the part of the Belgian executive?
Reply
(10 July 2001)
The Council takes note of the question put by the Honourable Member and would remind him that it is not in the habit of commenting on the content of articles appearing in the press. Nevertheless, as part of the procedures for keeping a physical inventory of data-processing equipment within the General Secretariat of the Council, it has been discovered that a number of PCs (50) are no longer to be found at the physical locations indicated in the database used for administrative management of the inventory.
On the basis of the information available, particularly reports of disappearances of PCs, this situation is not, in most of the cases, the result of systematic theft. Nor is there any reason to believe that diplomats have been involved in the disappearance of these PCs. Moreover, the administrative value of the missing equipment, a large proportion of which has had a service life which could give rise to decommissioning, represents about € 14 000, which is of a similar level to that obtaining in public or private organisations of a comparable size.
The Council would further point out that it is for the Secretary-General and the Deputy Secretary-General, under the Council’s responsibility, to take all the measures necessary to ensure the smooth operation of the General Secretariat of the Council.
To that end, the General Secretariat of the Council has, among other things, initiated a process to ensure more effective management of its data-processing equipment in order to limit as far as possible, by means of organisational measures and intensified checks, the risk of disappearance of such equipment.
Various measures have already been taken or are being planned, including, in particular:
definition of new organisational structures within the Department responsible for information technology and of procedures making it possible to follow more closely and systematically the lifecycle of computer equipment from acquisition (purchase/leasing) to decommissioning. It will thus be possible constantly to obtain precise information on the physical location of the equipment concerned;
implementation of both preventive and reactive security measures concerning regular checks and targeted investigations.
Moreover, the new inventory software (ELS), which will be fully operational in 2001, will make searches easier and inventory-taking more frequent. C 340 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3684/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 November 2000)
Subject: Amounts allotted under and implementation of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted to each Member State under the ERDF during the 1994-1999 programming period and what was the out-turn in each country?
Can it say what aggregate amounts have been allotted to each Member State under the ERDF in 2000 and what has been the out-turn to date in each country?
What is its assessment of ERDF out-turn in each Member State during the 1994-1999 programming period?
How does the Commission view ERDF out-turn so far in the year 2000 in the individual Member States?
Does it have any means of rectifying implementation of the ERDF in Member States that are not implementing it fully or properly?
Could unused appropriations be transferred to Member States which are making full and effective use of the resources allocated to them?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2001)
The appropriations allocated to each Member State from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the period 1994-1999 are set out in the table below. The outturn is 100 % because all the programmes were committed in full.
(€)
Outturn Member State 1994-1999 Belgique-België 957 606 814 Danmark 140 724 974 Deutschland 9 782 970 313 Ellada 10 303 740 348 España 20 174 723 823 France 6 233 794 043 Ireland 2 918 914 531 Italia 12 544 933 829 Luxembourg (Grand-Duché) 28 651 341 Nederland 707 865 733 Österreich 415 625 226 Portugal 9 648 763 703 Suomi/Finland 466 988 793 Sverige 401 192 524 United Kingdom 6 167 576 592 European Union (various Member States) 2 794 430 642 Total 83 688 503 229 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/5
The appropriations allocated to each country from the ERDF for 2000 and the outturn at the end of the year are set out in the following table.
(€)
Member State Allocation for 2000 Outturn 2000 Belgique-België 82 560 000 82 560 000 Danmark 23 214 352 23 214 352 Deutschland 1 938 880 969 1 398 309 305 Ellada 0 0 España 3 712 724 035 1 220 065 644 France 1 112 834 039 273 680 207 Ireland 407 670 000 407 670 000 Italia 2 018 391 000 1 987 089 000 Luxembourg (Grand-Duché) 0 0 Nederland 46 550 000 18 150 000 Österreich 132 453 900 24 372 673 Portugal 2 123 396 000 2 117 285 509 Suomi/Finland 136 940 000 136 940 000 Sverige 125 181 832 125 181 832 United Kingdom 1 389 376 000 504 628 000 European Union (various Member States) 0 0 Total 13 250 172 127 8 319 146 522
The part of the appropriations earmarked for 2000 not allocated to a particular Fund in advance was not used and will be transferred to the 2002-2006 period in accordance with point 17 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999.
All the programmes were committed in full as scheduled. However, the actual outturn will not be known until the programmes have been wound up, a process which is due to start in June 2001.
As long ago as 1998, the Commission already reallocated appropriations between various programmes in line with their importance and the scope for implementation that they afforded. The appropriations carried over were committed at the end of 1999 and in 2000 and the rules do not allow any further reallocation of these appropriations.
For the new period 2000-2006, Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) provides for a performance reserve so that additional funds can be allocated to programmes of greater importance affording more scope for implementation. The indicative allocations decided by the Commission and published in the Official Journal commit it vis-à-vis the Member States. It must comply with these allocations scrupulously and may amend them only by means of a reasoned and duly substantiated decision of amendment, which must be published. At this stage of programming, this question does not arise.
As regards the implementation of Cohesion Fund appropriations and the scope for the transfer of unused appropriations, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer given on 5 April 2001 to Written Question E-3683/00.
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. C 340 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3693/00 by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Council (29 November 2000)
Subject: Second annual report on the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports
When will the Council, under the French Presidency, be publishing its second annual report on the implementation of the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports?
When will the French Presidency be presenting this second annual report to Parliament?
How will the Presidency be addressing the following weak spots in the Code of Conduct: brokering;, licensed production in third countries; end-use control; multilateral rather than bilateral consultations in the event of undercutting?
Does the French Presidency agree with the statement, made in the report Parliament adopted in September 2000, that adherence to the Code of Conduct is a condition for EU membership? How does the Council Presidency intend to involve the applicant countries more closely in the mechanisms of the Code of Conduct?
How does the French Presidency see the relationship between the EU Code of Conduct and the Letter of Intent/Framework Agreement?
Reply (10 July 2001)
The second annual report drawn up in accordance with point 8 of the enacting terms of the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports was released on 4 December 2000, on which date it was noted by the Council. It was published in the Official Journal of the EC (1) and submitted by the Presidency to the European Parliament’s Working Party on Transfers of Arms on 6 December 2000.
The Council does not think that the points referred to in the third question put by the Honourable Member amount to actual weak spots in the Code, particularly since most of them, though coming within the area of arms exports, do not strictly speaking come within the Code.
The Council preparatory bodies are actively engaged in working on the question of brokerage. The issues of licensed production in third countries and of end-use control are already the subject of particular vigilance on the part of the Member States, which have pledged to monitor exports of equipment such as assembly lines. The question of a possible link between the sales price of arms and the form of consultations among Member States has, however, never been broached in the Council.
In the Council’s view, it is essential to ensure that the Associated States comply with the Code of Conduct before acceding to the Union, as all have in any case already undertaken to do. The associated countries receive detailed information on activities in the Council, including information on the implementation of the Code, in the context of the regular meetings at troika level. Nevertheless, it is possible to envisage other forms of cooperation in the field of the control of exports.
The Council believes that the process established by the Code and the process linked to the Letter of Intent/Framework Agreement, although originating in different sources, are nevertheless convergent. While the Code is the outcome of the political will born of the Luxembourg and Lisbon criteria, the Letter of Intent stems from an awareness of the incidence of European transnational companies in need of an appropriate intergovernmental framework which will ensure that their exports are effectively controlled. In practice, however, these two instruments are found to be complementary inasmuch as the Code is seen to focus increasingly on operational questions, whereas the Letter of Intent appears to aim at a wider target.
(1) OJ C 379, 29.12.2000, pp. 1 to 6. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/7
(2001/C 340 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3957/00 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(13 December 2000)
Subject: Rule of law in Romania
Is the Commission aware that the Romanian Justice Minister, Valeria Stoica, recently had the organisation ‘Pro-Transylvania’ declared unlawful, despite the universal right of association?
If not, when will the Commission institute an inquiry into the matter?
If so, does the Commission feel that such conduct may be reconciled with the principles of the rule of law?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(12 February 2001)
The 2000 Regular Report from the Commission on Romania’s Progress Towards Accession (1) observed that the freedom to associate is respected in Romania and that the treatment of national minorities is satisfactory. Furthermore, the Romanian constitution provides for freedom of association with the exception of organisations whose goals and activities are against the principles of the state (including the sovereignty and integrity of Romania).
It is the Commission’s understanding that the articles of establishment of ‘Pro-Transilvania’ call for ‘regional autonomy’ for Transilvania. This has led to a detailed legal debate within Romania over whether or not ‘regional autonomy’, as used in this context, can be interpreted as being contrary to the integrity of the Romanian state and is therefore unconstitutional. After several hearings in lower courts, the Court of Appeal decided that Pro-Transilvania’s articles of establishment, in their current formulation, were unconstitutional. A direct consequence of this ruling is that the organisation cannot be given a legal status.
The legal arguments related to this case are complex and involve an assessment of whether the provisions of the Romanian constitution, as have been interpreted in this case, constitute an unjustified prohibition on the freedom of association. It is not within the competence of the Commission to assess the interpretation by Romanian courts of the Romanian constitution. Since Romania is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, and considering that domestic appeal procedures have been exhausted, the appropriate body to assess such a case is the European Court of Human Rights.
The criteria for accession to the Union, as set out at the 1993 Copenhagen European Council, make explicit reference to the need for ‘stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities’. The Commission is fully committed to ensuring that this condition for accession is respected and will take up any relevant cases in its regular reports on candidate countries’ progress towards accession and in its bilateral relations with them.
(1) COM(2000) 710 final.
(2001/C 340 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3972/00 by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission
(20 December 2000)
Subject: WTO challenge by Canada to French Chrysotile Ban
On 18 September 2000 the WTO announced that the EU’s defence of the French ban on chrysotile had been upheld. The hard work of the EU defence team and the support of the EU’s expert witnesses were C 340 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
pivotal to this victory. Does the Commission wish to thank the EU lawyers, led by Theofanis Christoforou, and experts, including Dr Morris Greenberg from the UK and Dr Barry Castleman from the USA, for their dedication and perseverance?
Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission
(8 February 2001)
The Commission is very pleased with the conclusions of the panel that, on 18 September 2000, confirmed the consistency of the French ban on asbestos with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and it is grateful to all those who have contributed to achieving such a positive result. The Commission hopes that the panel’s final conclusion will be confirmed by the WTO Appellate Body.
(2001/C 340 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3989/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(21 December 2000)
Subject: Swedish public procurement law in relation to EU directive
A number of local politicians and local authority procurement officers in Sweden are now in revolt against the Swedish law on public procurement. Many local authorities take the view that the law prevents them from requiring companies to comply with social policy criteria, such as environmental considerations.
The law on public procurement was enacted in 1994 to bring the provisions into line with EU legislation but many local politicians believe that Sweden does not need such strict rules as it currently has. A recently published survey shows that Sweden has the most stringent public procurement law in the whole of Europe.
Has the Commission studied the various national laws on public procurement and does the Commission share the survey’s analysis that Sweden has been unnecessarily strict in its interpretation of the EU directive on this matter and could therefore relax its rules on public procurement?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(13 February 2001)
The Member States are obliged to take all measures necessary to comply with Community law and, in particular, to take the measures required to transpose Community directives into national law. When checking these national transposing measures, which it does as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission only ensures that all Community provisions have been correctly transposed. In this respect, it ensures in particular that provisions which establish rights for tenderers on the one hand, and public contract awarders on the other, have been transposed correctly.
As regards public procurement, the Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that putting all the provisions of the directives together does not make a uniform Community legislation in that several of the obligations pursuant to the directives allow the Member States some interpretative leeway concerning the means and scope of the measures taken. Moreover, in its Judgment of 20 September 1988 in Case 31/87 (Beentjes, Grounds of the Judgment 20), the Court of Justice confirmed that the Member States were therefore free to maintain or adopt substantive and procedural rules in regard to public works contracts on condition that they comply with all the relevant provisions of Community law, in particular the prohibitions resulting from the principles laid down in the Treaty in regard to the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services. Thus for example, some Member States, such as Sweden, have provisions in their legislation for an environmental award criterion. The public works directives (1) and the EC Treaty do not oppose this as such, bearing in mind that such a criterion would be directly linked to the subject of the public procurement and would involve economic gain for the contracting authority. Similarly, the Member States are allowed to provide for provisions which apply below the threshold, provided that they are in line with Community law. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/9
The Commission is not aware of the survey mentioned by the Honourable Member. If the Honourable Member considers that, despite the above, the provisions of Swedish law on public procurement would be against Community law, the Commission would of course be prepared to investigate why this was the case.
As regards, in particular, taking account of environmental and social conditions as part of public procurement, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to its Communication of 11 March 1998 (2), in which it highlighted current possibilities for taking such aspects into consideration within the framework of public procurement. The Commission is committed to adopting two interpretative communications the first on taking account of environmental targets in public procurement, the other on social objectives. The purpose of these two communications, which the Commission intends to adopt during the first quarter of 2001 for the environment and the first half of 2001 for the social aspects, is to clarify the conditions in which such objectives can be taken into account in accordance with Community law.
(1) I.e. Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209, 24.7.1992); Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993); Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993) and European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/ EEC and 93/37/EEC (OJ L 328, 28.11.1997). (2) COM(1998) 143 final.
(2001/C 340 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4139/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(16 January 2001)
Subject: Colombian jail release Tristan James Murray and Javier Nova
Bearing in mind Commissioners Nielson’s and Patten’s correspondence with Mrs Doyle in August and September on the subject of the disappearance of Tristan James Murray and Javier Nova, members of the Atlantis Community in Colombia and bearing in mind the horrific murder of Tristan James Murray and Javier Nova in Columbia at the hands of left wing guerrillas and given that the two Sanabria Guerrero brothers who carried out these murders have recently been released from prison in Colombia after serving just one month in prison, could the Commission through its Bogota office please contact the Fiscalia, the public prosecutor, for an immediate explanation the release of the Sanabria Guerrero brothers?
In the light of the EU’s involvement in the ‘Plan Colombia’ operation and in the light of the human rights record and the judicial system currently operating in Colombia, could the Commission confirm that it will make the grave concerns of Mrs Doyle, known to President Pastrana and use it’s influence in the region to ensure that justice is done in this case?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(12 February 2001)
As the Commission has already expressed on several occasions, it deeply deplores the murder of the young Tristan Murray and Javier Nova.
The Commission has already contacted the ‘Fiscalía’ in Colombia. Mrs Carmen Gonzales, Director of the Investigation Department stated that the case is currently being examined. The Commission will, of course, follow up on this issue and keep the Honourable Member informed about further developments.
As to the grave concerns expressed by the Honourable Member and the problem of human rights violations in general, the Union will continue to stress the importance of making progress in this field to its Colombian interlocutors. C 340 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0032/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(18 January 2001)
Subject: Meat-importing Member States await official measures against BSE in meat-exporting Member States
1. Is the Commission aware that governments of the Member States have waited until now to implement plans to close their domestic markets to imports of potentially hazardous animal products from other Member States because they take the view that Commission policy means that trade policy considerations outweigh food safety and consumer protection?
2. Are there instances of importing Member States being prevented by the Commission from anticipating official measures in countries where a heightened risk of BSE contamination is expected so that it was impossible to take action before the time when the exporting Member States themselves ascertained BSE infection and announced a ban on the consumption of possibly contaminated meat for their domestic market? What were the reasons for this?
3. Can it confirm that the risk of BSE infection in cows in Spain, Italy, Austria, Greece, Finland and Sweden is just as great as in Germany because, in those countries too, animal feed was used in feedstuffs and/or, until recently, the animal organs mostly responsible for Creutzveld Jacob’s disease were processed into products for human consumption and that the only difference is that, unlike Germany, those Member States have not yet themselves announced bans on the consumption of possibly contaminated meat?
4. Can it confirm that animal feed is still being exported from EU Member States to other countries, particularly in the third world, with the result that European animal feed may contribute to the worldwide spread of BSE? Does it believe that such exports must be stopped and can it indicate how this can be achieved?
5. Is it prepared to eliminate with the greatest possible dispatch all obstacles that might still remain at the present time to prohibiting meat and meat products that are a potential hazard to public health?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(14 May 2001)
The Commission’s policy for food is based on strict safety rules achieving a high degree of human health protection. With regard to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), it has put in place a very comprehensive series of Community measures aimed at eradicating BSE and protecting the public.
The Commission has not prevented Member States from taking appropriate health measures towards imported products provided they are based on sound scientific evidence.
The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the opinion adopted on 6 July 2000 by the Scientific Steering Committee on the geographical risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy where it classifies Member States according to different risk levels. That opinion is available on Internet at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/outcome_en.html.
Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 laid down rules concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein (1). According to Article 3(1) of this Decision, exports to third countries of processed animal proteins intended for the feeding of farmed animals which are kept, fattened or bred for the production of food are prohibited.
The Commission is monitoring the situation very closely, including the implementation of Community measures by Member States, and will propose any further measures necessary to maintain a high level of public health protection.
(1) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/11
(2001/C 340 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0103/01 by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission
(29 January 2001)
Subject: Use of European Social Fund resources for the ‘Edunet’ project
The company CST srl (Centro Servizi Terziario [Tertiary Services Centre], Via Tagliamento 45, I-00198 Rome) has been promoting the ‘Edunet’ project, which falls under the ADAPT2 Community programme and is co-financed by the European Social Fund.
On 22 and 23 September 2000, a meeting of the General Council of the Italian trade union Fisascat-C was held at the Hotel Le Meridien (Promenade des Anglais, 1, Nice).
The agenda for the meeting shows that on 22 September some kind of round table on the ‘Edunet Project’ had been scheduled for the two hours preceding the council meeting proper. CST had provided the participants in the Fisascat-Cisl General Council meeting with a contract to sign stating their involvement in the Edunet training programme, together with a form addressed to CST for the reimbursement of the expenses incurred for this ‘international conference on the Edunet Project’.
Clearly, the time devoted to the conference on the Edunet Project, assuming it actually took place, was minimal and insufficient to warrant the reimbursement of the expenses of those participating in the Fisascat-Cisl General Council meeting, at the expense of the funds earmarked for the Edunet Project. Given the above:
1. Can the Commission verify the above-mentioned events and, if necessary, refer the matter to the competent Italian authority?
2. Does it consider the use of European Social Fund resources for the funding of the day-to-day activities of internal trade union bodies to be compatible with the aims and objectives of the ESF (and of the ADAPT2 Community programme)?
3. What measures does the Commission intend to take and what control procedures does it intend to put in place should the above events be confirmed and should the Commission agree that Community rules have been breached?
Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(8 March 2001)
The Commission would point out that, ever since the reform of the Structural Funds in 1988 and 1989, the management of Community initiatives is now decentralised and is the sole responsibility of the competent national authority (for Italy: Ministero del Lavoro e della Previdenza Sociale, Ufficio centrale OFPL, Vicolo d’Aste 12, I-00159 Roma).
Accordingly, and for the specific case raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission has contacted the Italian Ministry of Labour, pointing out the need:
1. to check without delay: the expenditure and work of the Edunet project; whether the meeting in question took place; whether the work programme of the Edunet project warrants a meeting of this kind; whether the funding granted to the project has been used for purposes other than those for which the project was selected;
2. not to pay advances until there is absolute certainty about the organisation of the project and the use of the advances that have already been granted. To date, the project has received only 50 % of the European Social Fund (ESF) budget.
It should be pointed out that the Ministry of Labour has already provided the Commission with a copy of the letter of 8 March 2000 (Ref. 15497/AD) addressed to the promoter, in which the Ministry reminded the promoter that expenditure had to be directly and functionally related to the project. C 340 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
It should also be stressed that the Italian administration plans to check the expenditure of all the projects when the programme is closed. This check is carried out by the inspectors of the Ministry of Labour. Although the Edunet project has come to an end, it is not yet considered to be closed by the national administration because it has not been subjected to the final checks.
The Commission reserves its right, depending on the answers given by the Ministry, to send the case to the control services.
(2001/C 340 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0105/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(1 February 2001)
Subject: The Swedish Government’s statements on its Presidency objectives: the problem of unemployment
The Swedish Government has just stated that the priorities of its Presidency will be enlargement, environmental protection and job creation. The Presidency cannot be unaware that in the European Union, employment is mostly linked with wealth, and that the richest parts of the Union have the lowest unemployment rate, and vice versa.
This means that regional development policy, essentially funded by the Structural Funds and above all the ERDF, needs to be backed by a European job-creation policy whose main area of application will, logically, be in those countries and regions which benefit from the Structural Funds. Such a European job-creation policy requires specific budgetary funding.
What measures does the Swedish Presidency intend to take in order to achieve its own stated priority of tackling unemployment?
Does the Swedish Presidency intend to promote a European employment policy which will complement the regional development policy, with its own specific budgetary funding?
Reply
(16 July 2001)
As the Honourable Member has indicated, one of the primary aims of the Swedish Presidency is to continue to advance cooperation on employment. The European strategy in this area is based on the Treaty of Amsterdam and has been developed since the Luxembourg European Council meeting in 1997. This strategy, also known as the Luxembourg process, which draws on a procedure based on guidelines together with evaluation and surveillance mechanisms, national action plans and recommendations for Member States, has proved effective and has promoted cooperation in the employment field.
In the spring of 2001 cooperation of this kind was continued on the basis of the wide-ranging initiative adopted in March 2000 by the Heads of State or Government at the Lisbon Summit. The strategic objectives then laid down on employment, economic reforms and social cohesion were followed up at the European Council meeting held in Stockholm on 23 and 24 March 2001, the first annual Spring summit devoted to economic and social questions.
The Stockholm European Council focussed on how to modernise the European model and attain the strategic goal for the next decade decided at Lisbon: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. There was full agreement that economic reform, employment and social policies are mutually reinforcing. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/13
The Stockholm European Council discussed how to create more and better jobs, accelerate economic reform, modernise the European social model and harness new technologies.
With regard to the second question, the Council draws the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that, in the context of the new Structural Funds programmes for the period 2000-2006, the European Union will be providing Member States with a considerable amount of financial support for the development and implementation of their employment policies.
In the context of the European employment strategy, the European Union will set aside almost € 60 billion for the European Social Fund over the next seven years in order to:
promote greater economic and social cohesion within the European Union;
promote job creation and competitiveness in the European Union by investing in skills development;
support the specific needs of the labour market in those regions of the Community where development is lagging behind;
back up the commitments undertaken, at the Lisbon European Council meeting, to promote a dynamic, knowledge-based economy;
proceed with the necessary investment in human resources and training infrastructure to accompany the development and introduction of new technologies;
enable everyone to enjoy the fruits of economic growth;
eliminate the gender gap in employment.
Community action notably under the Swedish Presidency is therefore addressing the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member.
(2001/C 340 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0121/01 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(24 January 2001)
Subject: Kidnapping and illegal detention of Mr Tsiakourmas
On 13 December 2000, Mr Panikos Tsiakourmas, a Greek-Cypriot building contractor, was kidnapped from a British base on the outskirts of the village of Pergamos. Since then he has been held by the Turkish- Cypriot authorities on the patently trumped-up charge of possession of drugs.
Mr Tsiakourmas has no previous criminal record and there has never been any indication that he was involved in drugs in any shape or form.
Mr Tsiakourmas, moreover, suffers from diabetes. The Hungarian diabetes specialist sent by the UN to examine him a few days ago described his condition as serious; Mr Tsiakourmas had a blood sugar count of 349 as opposed to the norm of 100, he was exhausted and no longer capable of walking.
What immediate measures will the Council take in response to this flagrant violation of human rights, which is tantamount to a premeditated attempt on the victim’s life?
Reply
(10 July 2001)
The Council has been informed by the British authorities of the kidnapping of Mr Tsiakourmas from a British base. British authorities consider that there is strong circumstantial evidence that Mr Tsiakourmas was arrested illegally and taken away from their Eastern Sovereign Base Area. The matter has been pursued C 340 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
by EU Member States, and also by Unficyp. The UK took the matter up with both the Turkish authorities and the Turkish-Cypriot Community, and by Greece with the Turkish government. The Council is relieved that Mr Tsiakourmas has now been released, but is concerned by the guilty verdict, which appears to take no account of the evidence gathered by the base police or the fact that he had been taken against his will from the Eastern Sovereign Base Area (ESBA).
(2001/C 340 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0222/01 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(8 February 2001)
Subject: Used depleted uranium in the EU’s rapid reaction force
The resolution (B5-0047, 0049, 0050, 0051 and 0054/2001) on the use of depleted uranium which the European Parliament adopted on 17 January 2001 called for a moratorium on the use of depleted uranium weapons in accordance with the precautionary principle.
However, some Member States and members of NATO are determined to continue using munitions containing depleted uranium in Challenger tanks and in Sea Hawk fighter aircraft forming part of the rapid reaction force.
Can the Council provide a list of munitions currently in use which contain depleted uranium?
If not, why not?
If so, is the Council prepared to allow the precautionary principles to apply (as called for by Parliament) and to ask Member States to discontinue using such munitions?
Reply
(10 July 2001)
The Council discussed the issue of depleted uranium in munitions on 22 January 2001 and expressed its commitment to seek full clarity on this issue. Ministers also called for full transparency and open exchange of information between the authorities of the Member States, as well as with other organisations investigating this matter.
The Council does not have at its disposal a list of munitions currently in use, which contain depleted uranium. The decisions on the use of various types of munitions are taken by the Member States on the basis of their national sovereignty.
The Council, on 9 April 2001 had an exchange of views on the issue of depleted uranium munitions in the light of scientific evidence compiled by various international organisations.
At the end of this exchange of views, the President summarised the discussion thus:
The Council notes the work by various international organisations (UNEP, WHO, NATO, Ad hoc Group of experts set up by the Commission) on the possible health and environmental impact of exposure to depleted uranium in ammunition used in the Balkans.
In these detailed and objective examinations, there exists no scientific evidence to link the use of depleted uranium with various illnesses suffered in the population or among those who served in conflict areas.
However, due to the apparent health and environmental problems in the region the Council should remain committed to following possible further investigations closely and re-examining the issue if appropriate at a future stage. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/15
The Commission is already addressing some of the environmental problems in the regions through ongoing projects. The Council encourages the Commission to take into account findings from the reports on depleted uranium, as well as the overall situation concerning environment and health issues, as the Commission draws up new country strategy papers for all the countries in the Western Balkans.
(2001/C 340 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0248/01 by Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo (PPE-DE) to the Council (14 February 2001)
Subject: Regulation of alcohol consumption on various forms of transport, particularly aircraft
Drunkenness among passengers on various forms of transport is a relatively frequent occurrence. Such is the case on aircraft, where alcohol is served to passengers free of charge, with no restrictions on quantity.
Bearing in mind the inconvenience these kinds of situations cause for both passengers and crew, and the inadvisability, from the point of view of health, of consuming alcoholic beverages while travelling, especially on long plane journeys, will the Council state whether it has given consideration to this issue with a view to regulating the consumption of alcoholic beverages on various forms of transport, and on aircraft in particular? If so, what conclusions has it reached?
Reply (10 July 2001)
The Council is aware that alcohol abuse on board aircraft can have a greater effect on bodily functions than in other situations.
As far as the flight safety aspects are concerned, the consumption of alcohol by pilots and cabin crew is governed by very strict rules.
The Council has never had occasion to discuss the matter raised by the Honourable Member’s question.
(2001/C 340 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0257/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council (14 February 2001)
Subject: Right of Resale
What measures does the Council intend to take to ensure a ‘standard level of protection’ for the purposes of the draft Directive on the Right of Resale to ensure that they are in conformity with the provisions of Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community in the implementation of the draft Directive by the Member States, with particular regard to tax treatment?
(2001/C 340 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0259/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council (14 February 2001)
Subject: Right of Resale
What provisions will the natural or legal persons referred to in Article 9 of the draft Directive on the Right of Resale be required to make for payment of the potential right in the case of unknown and unknowable claims? C 340 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0261/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council
(14 February 2001)
Subject: Right of Resale
Does the sale price net of tax, on which basis the right is to be claimed in accordance with the draft Directive, include capital gains tax or its equivalent, and how is this to be calculated in a resale involving several different national tax laws?
(2001/C 340 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0263/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council
(14 February 2001)
Subject: Right of Resale
In the event of a resale involving persons liable to two or more national VAT and/or sales tax regimes, how is the sale price net of tax to be calculated for the purposes of the draft Directive on the Right of Resale? In the event that the VAT/sales tax treatment rules have yet to be agreed, on what basis will the right be calculated?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0257/01, E-0259/01, E-0261/01 and E-0263/01
(13 July 2001)
The questions asked by the Honourable Member relate to matters which remain the responsibility of the Member States and answers will therefore depend on the measures adopted by Member States when implementing the Directive on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, as well as on other relevant provisions of national law.
(2001/C 340 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0273/01 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission
(2 February 2001)
Subject: Transport of live animals by sea
In February 2000, Commissioner Byrne announced to Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy a number of measures for improving animal welfare. The promised measures included a proposal for a directive on standards for certain vessels used for the transport of live animals. The Commission is required to submit such a proposal pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 91/628 (1).
Ensuring that vessels meet certain minimum standards must be regarded as an important step towards improving the welfare of animals transported by sea.
A draft proposal was reportedly the subject of consultations with the interest groups concerned as far back as 1999. Will the Commissioner therefore say whether the Commission intends to submit the proposal to the Council and the European Parliament?
(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/17
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(27 April 2001)
The Commission adopted on 6 December 2000 a report on the protection of animals during transport (1). The report aims at analyzing the level of implementation by Member States of the Community legislation in this field and recommends future actions. In this report the Commission considers further legislative proposals essential in order to improve the current situation.
For detailed information on its future initiatives in this field the Commission refers the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question P-0117/01 by Mrs Paulsen (2).
As far as specific means of transport are concerned, the Commission report indicates that transportation by road over long distance is the most critical area which needs immediate action.
The Commission report also points out that the enforcement of the current Community rules and the development of a better system of information between the authorities of the Member States should be undertaken as a matter of priority during the forthcoming months.
As a consequence the Commission intends to put forward a proposal on sea-vessels as soon as the different priorities set up in the Commission report have been achieved.
(1) COM(2000) 809 final. (2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 189.
(2001/C 340 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0282/01 by Reimer Böge (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 February 2001)
Subject: Beef imports from third countries
In the interest of preventive consumer protection the Council has decided that cattle over the age of 30 months should undergo an instant BSE test on slaughter or, if no test is carried out, should be removed from the food chain.
Sweden, Finland and Austria are required to test animals aged over 30 months only when they are placed on the internal market.
Can the Commission ensure that, with regard to meat imports where the level of risk in a given third country is uncertain, testing will also be made a prerequisite?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(7 May 2001)
The development of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) epidemic in the Community at the end of 2000 necessitated a further reinforcement of the protection of consumers against BSE. To this end systematic testing of all bovine animals over 30 months of age entering the food chain was introduced as of 1 January 2001.
The current tests for BSE are used to detect clinical BSE cases or BSE infected animals close to the clinical phase. As the tests cannot detect the infection early in the incubation period, a negative test result is not as such a guarantee that the animal was not infected. The most important direct public health protection measure remains therefore the removal of specified BSE risk material at slaughter. The provisions on the removal of specified BSE risk material already apply to all animals slaughtered in the Community, whether of Community or third country origin. As of 1 April 2001, imported meat, meat products and C 340 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
preparations and processed animal protein must be certified free from specified BSE risk materials. Derogations may be given for products from countries with a satisfactory BSE status.
A further harmonization of BSE related import conditions should take place in the framework of the proposal of a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE’s) (1). The Council adopted its Common Position (2) on this proposal on 12 February 2001. If Parliament accepts the Common Position of Council the Regulation could enter into force on 1 July 2001. By creating primary legislation on TSEs on the basis of Article 152 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty, this Regulation would offer a powerful legal instrument to regulate amongst others the third country import conditions.
Those import conditions will be based on a scientific assessment of the BSE risk in the country concerned and of the measures needed to manage that risk. The recommendations of the international standard in this area will also need to be taken into account. Currently, the international standard does not recommend BSE testing at slaughter as a measure to protect public health.
(1) OJ C 45, 19.2.1999. (2) OJ C 88, 19.3.2001.
(2001/C 340 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0289/01 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 February 2001)
Subject: Promeuro
Will the Commission deposit in the EP library copies of the material produced by Promeuro using EC funds?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(2 April 2001)
The Commission will of course be happy to deposit in the Parliament’s Library copies of the material produced by Promeuro, which was made with Community financial contribution in the framework of the Prince programme.
(2001/C 340 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0314/01 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council
(14 February 2001)
Subject: Working parties
There are hundreds of Communities’ working parties in which Council respresentatives meet to discuss legislative proposals.
In order to improve transparency, can the Council:
1. List all active working parties, specifying the nature of the national and EC delegation and the mandate of the working party?
2. Supply a copy of the present agenda for future meetings of each working party, which should be placed on the internet on a regular basis? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/19
Reply
(10 July 2001)
1. The Council would inform the Honourable Member that committees or working parties may be set up by Coreper, or with its approval, for the performance of certain previously defined preparatory or study tasks. The list of the various committees and working parties involved in the Council’s preparatory work is regularly updated by the General Secretariat of the Council. Annexed to this reply the Honourable Member will find the latest version of this list (5916/01 + COR 1). Only those committees and working parties on this list may meet as a Council preparatory body.
As far as the nature of the bodies in question is concerned, the name of every working party clearly indicates the kind of issues for which it is responsible.
2. Regarding the publication of the agendas for meetings of these various working parties, groups and committees, the Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Written Question P-504/01, put by Chris Davies in which it is stated that, in accordance with the Council Decision which takes effect on 1 May 2001, the General Secretariat of the Council may make available to the public as soon as they have been circulated the documents which are clearly not covered by any of the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Council Decision 93/731/EC, such as the provisional agendas of committees and working parties.
(2001/C 340 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0362/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(14 February 2001)
Subject: Xerox restructuring Commission meetings
Xerox is currently in the process of restructuring its European Manufacturing Operations at Venrey, in Holland, Mitcheldean in the UK and Dundalk in Ireland.
In the light of Xerox’s wish to soften up Commission officials so that they are prepared for bad news in this area, can the Commission detail what meetings it has had with representatives of Xerox or companies representing Xerox over the last three months and what meetings are planned for the future?
Would the Commission agree that, for each meeting held by Xerox, a parallel meeting should be offered to the representatives of the employees whose jobs are under threat?
(2001/C 340 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0363/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(14 February 2001)
Subject: Xerox restructuring advance decision
Xerox is currently in the process of restructuring its European Manufacturing Operations at Venrey, in Holland, Mitcheldean in the UK and Dundalk in Ireland.
Can the Commission make it clear to Xerox that, should it emerge that the decisions on restructuring had actually been taken in advance of consultation starting, that would be a clear breach of Community law and that the Commission would take the appropriate legal steps? C 340 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0366/01
by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(14 February 2001)
Subject: Xerox announcement about restructuring
Xerox is currently in the process of restructuring its European Manufacturing Operations at Venrey, in Holland, Mitcheldean in the UK and Dundalk in Ireland.
In view of the negative publicity when Xerox undertook a similar operation in 1999 that led to the European Parliament condemning it for failure to consult adequately the workforce and its clear wish this time to make any such announcement when the European Commission does not have restructuring or consultation of workers on the agenda, would the Commission care to suggest to Xerox some dates when it would be appropriate for it to make its announcement?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0362/01, E-0363/01 and E-0366/01 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 2001)
With regard to employees’ rights, decisions on corporate restructuring need to be taken in compliance with the national legislation implementing a number of directives in the field of labour law and industrial relations, in particular Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1), Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (2) and Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community- scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (3).
All these Directives provide for adequate and effective information and consultation of workers’ representatives before decisions are taken and implemented which can affect them. Xerox is of course bound by these obligations with regard to any decision falling within the scope of the above mentioned Directives in relation to its European operations.
However, given that all Member States involved in the envisaged restructuring operation have properly incorporated into their national law the provisions of the Directives mentioned above, the Commission wants to underline that any issues arising in this area are a matter for the national industrial relations’ procedures and/or the national courts in the first instance.
The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that concerning employment aspects no meetings or contacts with representatives of Xerox or companies representing Xerox or workers’ representatives took place with Commission officials and that no such meetings or contacts are planned for the future.
(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998. (2) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998. (3) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/21
(2001/C 340 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0394/01 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) and Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (PPE-DE) to the Council
(20 February 2001)
Subject: ETA terrorist operations
According to information from the reputable Spanish newspaper El Pais, police sources and the public, the terrorist organisation ETA has extorted substantial sums of money from small businessmen and small businesses in the Basque country by sending them letters threatening their lives. Recently, a death-threat against the famous French footballer, Lizarazu, was also given wide publicity. Furthermore, the newspaper Diario 16 revealed that many Basque footballers have received similar threats from ETA and pay extortion money to avoid assassination by that organisation. Apparently, the extortion money paid by the terror victims to avoid assassination is used to finance ETA’s deadly terrorist operations and to enable the terrorists to live in comfort without having to work.
Does the Council not think that, instead of confining itself to condemning violence and expressing its sorrow for the victims every time that ETA commits an assassination (which the European Parliament also does, of course), it would be more effective to point out that the terrorists concerned claiming that they seek the independence of the Basque country are also fighting for their own personal wealth? Would not such an accusation severely undermine their standing since it would discredit their alleged revolutionary selflessness and their patriotic aspirations?
In the light of these facts, will the Council draw up an integrated policy to combat terrorism?
Reply
(16 July 2001)
The Council is working towards an integrated approach against the scourge of terrorism. Every six months a paper on the threat that it poses is drawn up and exchanges of views on recent incidents take place regularly.
One of the objectives of European security and defence policy is to combat terrorism. More specifically, the Council Recommendation of 9 December 1999 provides for cooperation between Member States’ authorities in financing the fight against terrorism.
(2001/C 340 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0403/01 by Toine Manders (ELDR), Ward Beysen (ELDR), Graham Watson (ELDR), Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) and Ole Andreasen (ELDR) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Complaint about abuse of UEFA’s position
We have recently heard that UEFA has banned a new initiative, the Euro League, from the football market. If the Euro League does start up, both the clubs and their players taking part will be banned from taking part in other events organised by UEFA and the players will be barred from appearing for their national teams.
Football clubs’ income is no longer determined by the number of spectators but by media revenue which is what is used to pay players’ salaries. The small EU countries are at a disproportionate disadvantage in this respect and consequently they are no longer able to compete with the large countries. To meet this challenge a number of small countries (Belgium, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark) have proposed having a competition (the Euro League) between their best clubs. Bringing these countries together opens up the field and makes the matches more attractive to the media and to sponsors, and will enable small countries to compete once again with the major football countries such as Spain, France, Germany, England and Italy. Since the Commission agrees with us that professional football is an C 340 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
economic activity, clubs must have the opportunity of developing their economic strategies within the internal market. A ban by UEFA, which occupies a monopoly position in this respect, is, we feel, in violation of European rules.
We are increasingly aware of UEFA abusing its monopoly position in other areas, too. One example is the transfer system which the Commission is looking into.
If Opel and Volkswagen can be compelled by the Commission to change the way they treat their dealers, UEFA should change the way it treats the clubs.
1. Does the Commission agree that in the case described above UEFA is abusing its position of power and hence is in contravention of European rules?
2. If so, is it prepared to look into the ban on the Euro League and to take what action is necessary so that competition a priority objective of the European Union can take place under conditions of fairness, not least for football clubs from small countries?
3. Can the Commission look into whether UEFA has abused its monopoly position in other areas, too, and is it prepared to take whatever action is necessary?
4. Further evidence can be provided on request. If the answer to question 5 is in the negative, what opportunities are there, in the Commission’s opinion, for clubs from small countries competing within the internal market if they are obliged to operate exclusively within their own Member States?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(9 April 2001)
The Commission has learned through the press about the plan to set up a new European championship, the Euro League, involving the best clubs from the Belgian, Danish, Dutch, Portuguese, Swedish and Scottish championships.
The Commission has as yet received no application for approval or exemption from the initiators of the project or the clubs in question, nor any complaint related to the project or its rejection by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). Were it to receive an application or complaint, the Commission would examine any competition problems and, in particular, the possible benefits of this new championship to the consumer. The examination would also take account of the specific features of sport, as set out in the Helsinki report on sport (1) and the Nice Declaration on ‘the specific characteristics of sport and its social function in Europe’ (2).
(1) 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 The Helsinki Report on Sport COM(1999) 644 final. (2) Conclusions of the Presidency Nice European Council 7, 8 and 9 December 2000 Annex IV Declaration on the specific characteristics of sport and its social function in Europe, of which account should be taken in implementing common policies.
(2001/C 340 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0411/01 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Tax discrimination against leasing of staff from elsewhere in the Community
Liability for municipal tax payable to local authorities in Austria, including that payable by staff leasing agencies, has hitherto always been calculated on the total wage bill. As of 1 January 2001, in accordance with Article 20 of the law applicable to implementation of the 2001 budget (BGBl I, 142/2000), the undertaking for which staff have been recruited by a staff leasing agency is liable for local authority tax at 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/23
the rate of 70 % of the recruitment fee. Since this means in particular that ancillary wage costs and a profits component are now included in the basis of assessment, the end result is to at least double the local authority tax burden.
An employee leased by a staff leasing agency established elsewhere on Community territory to an Austrian firm for work in Austria will be significantly less well-off in terms of liability for local authority tax than an employee recruited directly by the same firm in Austria.
Even if the abovementioned Austrian-based firm were, for example, to commission an Austrian-based electronics undertaking to carry out a repair, a much lower amount would be payable in local authority tax than if the repair were carried out by an electrician who had been recruited through a staff leasing agency established elsewhere in the Community.
Is the discrimination operating here to obstruct competition from staff leasing agencies established elsewhere in the Community permissible under European law?
Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(15 May 2001)
Municipal tax is provided for by Austrian federal law. As there are no specific Community provisions, the tax is within Austria’s political discretion. The Member States must nevertheless observe the general principles of Community legislation, including the prohibition of discrimination. However, in the situation referred to by the Honourable Member, foreign staff leasing agencies are not discriminated against compared with employees in Austria, as the situations are not comparable: only the situations of staff leasing firms are comparable. Austrian law does not provide for different treatment of such firms according to whether they are based abroad or in Austria. The Commission therefore assumes that it is not mainly foreign firms that might incur a higher tax burden.
(2001/C 340 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0412/01 by Hans Modrow (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: EU action against BSE in cattle
BSE has been known to occur in cattle since the mid-1980s. When cases began to multiply in the UK in particular, the EU reacted with an export ban on British beef, which was half-heartedly imposed before being eventually lifted. Despite wide-ranging public concern about BSE and despite the high sensitivity to this issue on the part of producers and consumers alike, scientific research has been absolutely neglected.
The Commission consequently is asked:
1. Why has research into the causes of BSE been so criminally neglected?
2. What action has been agreed to catch up with the research backlog in as short a time as possible?
3. What research status is assigned to investigating the effects of brain toxins on cattle, and in what manner will the results be made public?
4. What research is being conducted into how BSE is transmitted to humans, the better to enable it to be combated successfully?
5. In what ways are products other than animal meal that are exposed to the risk of toxic contamination being used? C 340 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(17 May 2001)
1. Research on human and animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) has been supported within the Community research programmes since 1990 with a total Community contribution of € 53 880 million (€ 2 120 million during the Second and Third framework programme, € 50 700 million within the European Action Plan on TSE adopted by the Council and the Parliament in November 1996 (1) and implemented by three specific calls for proposals, and € 1 060 million within the Fifth framework programme (2)). In addition, nine new proposals are currently under negotiation with a total contribution of € 10,6 million. Therefore, a total contribution of € 64,48 million has been allocated to TSE research in the research programmes.
The Joint Research Centre of the Commission (JRC) has engaged in an extensive programme for the evaluation of post-mortem tests on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) infection and the establish- ment of appropriate measures for quality assurance in the ongoing monitoring programme. It is also engaged in programmes for the evaluation of methods for the detection of meat and bone meal in animal feed and for the assessment of heat treatment of animal meat and bone meal.
2. In line with the conclusions of the Research Council of 16 November 2000, an expert group with representatives from Member States, experts from the Ad hoc Group of TSE of the Scientific Steering Committee and from the Joint Research Centre has been set up in order to:
examine the state of TSE research across Member States,
encourage exchange of information between research teams; and
identify on-going research topics which need strengthening as well as new research areas.
3. Research into the pathogenesis and in particular the mechanisms and factors involved in neuroinvasion, neurodegeneration and neuronal death is an important area of research both at national and in the framework of Community projects.
Research results are made public through publications in scientific journals.
4. Considerable effort has been undertaken into research on transmission both at national and Community level in view of performing risk assessment and of combating the disease. The research includes different aspects of transmission, notably the determination of infectivity of tissues, the determination of the oral infective dose, the verification if TSEs can be transmitted to other food animals, the investigation of lateral and vertical transmission and the investigation of other mechanisms of transmission.
5. Council Directive 1999/29/EC of 22 April 1999 on the undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition (3) establishes maximum levels for undesirable substances and products for feedingstuffs and feed materials. Only feedingstuffs and feed materials complying with the provisions of the above mentioned Directive can be used for animal nutrition. Consequently, the risk of toxic contamination is minimised. Moreover, the Commission submitted on 17 December 1999, for adoption by the Parliament and Council, a proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition (4) significantly strengthening the provisions of above mentioned Directive.
(1) COM(96) 582 final. (2) OJ C 137, 7.6.1997. (3) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999. (4) OJ C 89 E, 28.3.2000 as amended by COM(2000) 861 final. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/25
(2001/C 340 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/01 by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(16 February 2001)
Subject: Testing for cervical cancer
Each year, thousands of European women die from cervical cancer because of the inadequacies of the current testing system. Recent studies by the German Universities of Hanover and Tübingen reveal that more than half of all pap smears are inaccurate.
What measures, if any, does the Commission intend to take to improve the detection rate for cervical cancer? Will it encourage Member States to introduce systematic testing?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 2001)
Under the ‘Europe against Cancer’ programme, a European network for screening for cervical cancer has been set up, which develops a consensus on the best practice for secondary prevention of cervical cancer by screening. To this end a consensus conference on screening for cancer including cervical, breast, prostate and other cancers was held in November 1999 in Vienna. The ‘Advisory Committee on Cancer Prevention’, which advises the Commission on all issues related to the prevention of cancer, delivered a set of recommendations on cancer prevention by screening. The Commission plans to propose Council Recommendations on Screening for Cancer, based on these recommendations.
(2001/C 340 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0422/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Council
(20 February 2001)
Subject: European interests in the Mediterranean
Despite the lack of multilateral cooperation in the western Mediterranean over the last nine years due, inter alia, to the violence in Algeria and the international embargo of Libya, two events of fundamental importance for the area have occurred during this period: the launch of the Middle East peace negotiations in 1991 and the establishment of the Barcelona Process in 1995.
The positive approach adopted by Libya, which has participated in the cooperation group of Interior Ministers of western Mediterranean countries since 1999 and is an observer to the Barcelona Process, Mauritania’s withdrawal from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) on 31 December 2000 and the resumption, on 25 January in Lisbon, of the work of the ‘5+5’ Group for Euromediterranean cooperation composed of the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the five countries of the Arab Maghreb Union and the European Latin Rim countries (Spain, Italy, France and Portugal), plus Malta are clear signs of a gradual rapprochement that must prevail in the Mediterranean.
What is the Council’s political assessment of these recent events? What are the Council’s priorities for promoting European interests in this part of the Mediterranean? What steps does it intend to take to further this process of rapprochement?
Reply
(10 July 2001)
In recent months the EU has worked actively, both at multilateral and regional level and bilaterally, to promote the stability and development of the Mediterranean region and the EU’s interests in the area. C 340 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
In its multilateral and regional components, the principles of action and coherence of the European Union’s policy on the Mediterranean region have been defined and reaffirmed at two levels: by the 15 Member States, in the Common Strategy drawn up by the Council and adopted on 20 June 2000 by the European Council in Feira; and by the Fifteen joined by the candidate countries, at the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference in Marseille on 15 and 16 November 2000, which gave rise to the formal conclusions of the Presidency.
The Common Strategy on the Mediterranean Region defines and promotes the Union’s objectives and interests in the region.
Its three main goals are as follows:
to develop the Partnership established by the 1995 Barcelona Declaration and its subsequent acquis;
to express the EU’s determination to pursue a coherent overall policy towards the region;
to manifest the EU’s support for the consolidation of peace in the Middle East.
These objectives are closely reflected in the priorities put forward by the respective Presidencies for implementing the Strategy in the second half of 2000 and the first half of 2001.
The fourth Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference in Marseille bore witness to the desire of the participants to reinvigorate the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership despite the situation in the Middle East.
While making a qualified assessment of the implementation of the Partnership, all the participants emphasised the vital role of the institutional framework of the Barcelona Process and the need for the balanced progression of its three complementary chapters (political and security; economic and commercial; social, cultural and human). The Presidency announced the adoption by the Council on 26 November 2000 of the MEDA II Regulation: the new rules governing the Partnership’s main financial instrument, to which a budget of € 5 350 billion was allocated, are aimed at simplifying and accelerating implementation by speeding up procedures, and at making it more efficient by improving planning capacity.
The EU has also taken bilateral measures. With respect to the specific points raised by the Honourable Member, the Association Agreement with Egypt was initialled on 26 January and the negotiations to conclude Association Agreements with Algeria, Lebanon and Syria are being pursued actively with a view to completing negotiations this year. Although Mauritania, which was also mentioned by the Honourable Member, is an ACP country, it is regularly informed by the Presidency of the Council of initiatives taken and progress made in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. With respect to the EU’s policy towards Libya, the Council refers the Honourable Member to point 6 of the Common Strategy: ‘It covers all the EU’s relations with all its partners in the Barcelona process, and with Libya’. While Libya has to date given no undertaking that it will adhere fully to the acquis of the Barcelona Process, it has participated in the past two ministerial conferences (Stuttgart and Marseille) as the Presidency’s ‘special guest’.
The Council is also aware of the constructive role played in this area by the European Parliament, particularly during the parliamentary forum it organised in February 2001.
Libya was also invited to the Ministerial Conference on the Western Mediterranean Cooperation Process, known as the ‘5+5’ Process, in Lisbon on 25/26 January, to which the Honourable Member also refers. This non-Community forum has a useful role to play in complementing the Council’s coherent overall policy towards the Mediterranean region. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/27
(2001/C 340 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0428/01 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission
(16 February 2001)
Subject: Checks relating to the ban on the sale and use of animal feed containing animal proteins for ruminants
Following the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in 1986, and of the fact that the disease is spread by the feeding to ruminants of animal meal containing animal proteins, the Commission, in Decision 90/134/EEC (1), made it obligatory for all Member States to notify instances of the disease. In the months and years that followed 1990 many other decisions were adopted aimed at preventing the export and consumption of animals thought to pose a risk.
On 27 June 1994 the Commission adopted Decision 94/381/EC (2), which banned the feeding to ruminants of proteins of animal origin. The recent cases of BSE identified in numerous Member States demonstrate that the ban on the use of animal proteins has not been complied with.
In addition, the Commission spends large sums of money on BSE monitoring programmes aimed at ensuring that potentially suspect meat does not find its way onto the market. It does not appear, however, that any money is spent on promoting stricter checks on the application of the ban on the use of animal proteins in animal feeds for ruminants.
Can the Commission say whether the above information is correct?
Does it intend to check what measures have been introduced by the Member States to give effect to the ban on the sale and distribution of animal feeds containing animal proteins, which, given that they are the only cause of the spread of the disease, must be got rid of completely?
Is it prepared to examine the possibility of providing for increased and more systematic Community-level checking in relation to the ban on the manufacture and use of feeds containing animal proteins, in order to prevent the re-emergence of BSE in the near future?
Does it intend to adopt provisions on the granting of financial aid for monitoring programmes aimed at preventing the sale and use of feeds containing animal proteins?
(1) OJ L 76, 22.3.1990, p. 23. (2) OJ L 172, 7.7.1994, p. 23.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 2001)
Protection of consumer health is one of the prime objectives of the Commission. Any potential health risk relating to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is taken extremely seriously. To this end, a comprehensive series of Community measures has been put in place.
It is true that some of these measures have been co-financed by the Community. However, their objectives did not only apply to BSE monitoring but also to BSE eradication, public health protection and support of the beef market.
With respect to compliance with the recent prohibition to feed farmed animals with processed animal proteins, the Commission has already received information from the Member States regarding its implementation. This information was provided in response to a questionnaire that was sent to the Member States on 5 January 2001. It enabled the Commission to obtain a comprehensive picture of the way in which the measures are being implemented. The results were broadly satisfactory and an implementation report has been presented to the Member States on 29 January 2001.
Member States are responsible for implementation and enforcement of Community law. Their performance is monitored by inspectors of the Food and Veterinary Office, who visited the Member States in this respect in December 2000 and early in 2001. The reports of these controls are expected to be finalised and published on Internet shortly. A second round of inspections is already being prepared. With regard to the above prohibition, Article 3(4) of Commission Decision 2001/9/EC of 29 December 2000 concerning C 340 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
control measures required for the implementation of Council Decision 2000/766/EC concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein (1) requires documentary checks and tests to be carried out on feed materials and compound feedingstuffs throughout the production and distribution chain to ensure compliance with this prohibition.
There is no Community financing foreseen to monitor the ban on sale and use of feeds containing animal proteins.
(1) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001.
(2001/C 340 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0429/01 by Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE) to the Council
(20 February 2001)
Subject: Effective and timely action to ascertain and combat the effects of the use of uranium- and plutonium-enriched projectiles
In view of the strong sense of loyalty shown by the countries belonging to NATO and their genuine shared support for the ideas, aims and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which they are all committed, and given the recent alarm caused by unanswered questions surrounding the death of a number European soldiers who had taken part in peace-keeping operations in the former Yugoslavia, can the Council say:
whether it considers it necessary, in accordance with the principles of transparency and full cooperation, to find out from the relevant NATO authorities, as a matter of urgency, exactly where uranium- and plutonium-enriched explosive projectiles were used, as well as to ask for the full disclosure of the technical data relating to the manufacture of such weapons;
whether it intends actively to support the holding of an international inquiry into the use of and the effects of deadly weapons of this sort, in view of the expert evidence provided by specialised UN bodies and various regional organisations;
whether it considers it necessary to impose a strict moratorium on the use of uranium-enriched projectiles, as called for by the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, until such time as scientists have cleared up the doubts that exist about the harm they cause or established that they do in fact pose a danger to human health;
whether it intends to extend the remit of such an inquiry to include the effects of the attacks on and the destruction of industrial sites during bombing missions which led to the release into the environment of numerous toxic substances;
whether it is prepared to undertake a timely and detailed epidemiological survey of the civilian population and the military personnel who have been exposed to radiation;
whether it is prepared to clean up the environments which have been contaminated, starting with grazing land and water resources in the areas affected?
Reply
(10 July 2001)
During the discussion on the occasion of the meeting of the Council (General Affairs) of 22 January 2001, Ministers called for full transparency and open exchange of information between the authorities of the Member States, as well as with other organisations investigating the use of depleted uranium in munitions. There was general agreement that in the first instance it was for NATO, as the institution organising crisis management in Balkans, to assemble the information from participants on the use of depleted uranium, on the locations of troops and on medical data. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/29
The Council, on 9 April 2001 had an exchange of views on the issue of depleted uranium munitions in the light of scientific evidence compiled by various international organisations.
At the end of this exchange of views, the President summarised the discussion thus:
The Council notes the work by various international organisations (UNEP, WHO, NATO, Ad hoc Group of experts set up by the Commission) on the possible health and environmental impact of exposure to depleted uranium in ammunition used in the Balkans.
In these detailed and objective examinations, there exists no scientific evidence to link the use of depleted uranium with various illnesses suffered in the population or among those who served in conflict areas.
However, due to the apparent health and environmental problems in the region the Council should remain committed to following possible further investigations closely and re-examining the issue if appropriate at a future stage.
The Commission is already addressing some of the environmental problems in the regions through ongoing projects. The Council encourages the Commission to take into account findings from the reports on depleted uranium, as well as the overall situation concerning environment and health issues, as the Commission draws up new country strategy papers for all the countries in the Western Balkans.
(2001/C 340 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0444/01 by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Council
(14 February 2001)
Subject: Human rights in China
Since the invasion of Tibet in 1949, the communist regime in China has been guilty of extensive violations of human rights. More than a million people have been executed in the effort to stifle dissent and occupy Tibet. In recent years, the violations have intensified and the situation in Tibet is now reminiscent of the period during the cultural revolution of the 60s and 70s.
As the repression in Tibet takes place, the Chinese regime has also escalated its persecution of the practitioners of Falun Gong. The government looks uneasily on a movement which in the space of a few years has grown bigger than the communist party, though it has no political ambitions. Innocent people are thrown into jail, others are persecuted and many have been killed in the Chinese Government’s raids on the Falun Gong.
The EU’s relations with China have for a number of years been based on ‘critical dialogue’. Nevertheless, China continues to commit violations of the most basic human rights. No opposition is allowed and anyone trying to point out alternatives to the communist dictatorship is severely punished. There are no signs of any improvement in democracy or freedom of expression. The EU and its Member States maintain contact with China at several levels. Unfortunately, however, human rights issues have not been given a position of prominence in the talks which take place. In previous years, in the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, the EU Member States have elected not to support a resolution against repression in China.
In the light of developments in China, does the Council consider that the EU should review its policy of ‘critical dialogue’ with that country and thereby take the initiative this year for a resolution condemning China’s violations of human rights in the UN Commission on Human Rights? C 340 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0481/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council
(14 February 2001)
Subject: Falun Gong
Has the Council registered its strong disapproval to the Chinese authorities regarding their treatment of Falun Gong practitioners? If so, what response has it received?
Joint answer to Written Questions P-0444/01 and P-0481/01
(10 July 2001)
The restrictions on freedom of religion and belief in China are a recurrent item on the agenda of the EU- China human rights dialogue. The issue was identified by the Council in its conclusions of 22 and 23 January 2001 as one of the specific areas in which the EU considers that the dialogue process should secure progress.
The EU has on several occasions expressed its deep concern to the Chinese authorities regarding the measures taken against followers of religious and spiritual movements, including Falun Gong practitioners. This matter was also discussed at the last round of the human rights dialogue which took place on 22 and 23 February in Stockholm. In fact, on 2 February the Troika in Beijing carried out a demarche in preparation for the upcoming round of the EU-China human rights dialogue. The EU side gave the Chines authorities a list of individual cases requesting that clemency measures be taken, and in that context orally mentioned the names of Falun Gong followers Li Xiaobing, Li Xiaomei and Yu Changxin.
There is little information on the fate of Falun Gong detainees. The Hong Kong-based Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy counted 98 such deaths nation-wide between July 1999 and mid- January 2001. It should be noted that 46 have occurred since October 2000, suggesting an increase in the incidence of mistreatment of followers in recent months. According to the Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, around 450 have been sentenced by courts, several hundred have been committed to psychiatric institutions, and as many as 10 000 are currently serving ‘re-education’ labour sentences.
The EU’s position is that it does not want to engage in a discussion on the nature of the movement, but that restrictions of freedom of religion and belief and freedom of assembly should be lifted and that the human rights of all, including followers of Falun Gong, should be respected.
In its conclusions of 19 May 2001, the General Affairs Council stated that it was particularly concerned about the lack of respect for fundamental freedoms in China, including the freedom of expression, religion and association, and about the ongoing violations of human rights, in particular of Falun Gong followers. In the same conclusions, the Council agreed the approach to be adopted with regard to the United States’ decision to table a draft resolution on human rights in China at the 57th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
(2001/C 340 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0462/01 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council
(14 February 2001)
Subject: Threat to peace in the Balkans and the rise in Albanian nationalism
In my capacity as European Parliament rapporteur on the implementation of the action plan for Albania and the neighbouring region, I am fully aware of the difficulties facing the Albanian Government 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/31
in its attempts to strengthen democratic institutions. I should therefore like to express my profound alarm at the events that have unfolded over the last few days in southern Serbia, Kosovo and the FYROM where groups of armed Albanians have been attacking KFOR troops and the police and have been involved in violent confrontations with the remaining members of the Serb population.
It is clear that the new strategy of the reorganised Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK/KLA) aims to change the borders of the Balkans by making Kosovo independent and uniting all Albanians in a ‘Greater Albania’, which poses a serious threat to peace in the Balkans and indeed the whole of Europe.
Bearing in mind the grave threat to the stability of the region posed by extremist nationalist organisations, what measures does the Council intend to take to help defuse the crisis before it is too late?
Reply
(10 July 2001)
The Council is deeply concerned over the escalating violence in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), which threatens to destabilise the country and the region. It also condemns the continuing violence in Kosovo, notably targeting minorities.
Political demands should be put forward in a peaceful manner and in accordance with democratic principles. The Stockholm European Council stated unequivocally that there is no future in our Europe for those who follow the path of intolerance, nationalism and violence. The EU will only support those who unreservedly choose the path of peace, democracy, reconciliation and regional cooperation. The Council recalled the EU’s firm commitment to the principles of the inviolability of borders and the territorial integrity of the countries in the region.
The European Council reaffirmed its solidarity with President Trajkovski and the FYROM Government in the current crisis and urged them to continue to respond with restraint, so as to prevent an escalation of military activity. It also stressed that the continuation of effective internal political reforms and consolidation of a true multi-ethnic society were indispensable. The EU stands ready to assist in this process within the framework of the considerable assistance it is already giving to FYROM. This includes border management projects; support for refugees; support for local government throughout the country, including a programme to improve infrastructures at municipal level; work in the field of minority rights, including substantial contributions to the new University of South-East Europe in Tetovo; help with judicial reform and training, including an emphasis on minority rights; and help with the forthcoming census. The signature on 9 April 2001 of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with FYROM, the first to be signed with a country in the region, will provide a framework for further support.
The European Council also called on the leaders of the ethnic Albanian community in FYROM to maintain their commitment to the democratic process, to the renunciation of violence and to dialogue, and to hold to that commitment in pursuing their legitimate aspirations to consolidate FYROM’s multi-ethnic society. It called on Albanian political leaders in Kosovo to continue to dissociate themselves unambiguously from the extremists, to condemn violence unconditionally, and to respect the principle of the inviolability of borders, as the Albanian Government has done. The EU welcomes its strong stand.
The European Council invited the High Representative, Mr Javier Solana, to follow the situation in the region, to stay in close touch with the leaders and, in consultation with the Commission, to make recommendations to the Council.
The EU fully supports the political dialogue initiated in Southern Serbia. In this respect the Council welcomes the signature of the cease-fire by FRY/Serb and ethnic Albanian representatives in southern Serbia, which constitutes an important step, as well as the start of talks in the framework of the Covic plan to reach a negotiated settlement. The Stockholm European Council expressed appreciation for the readiness of the FRY and Serb authorities to resolve the conflict peacefully. It called on all parties to undertake real confidence-building measures, including the release of all Kosovo Albanian political prisoners. The EU stands ready to assist this process, inter alia by an increased EUMM presence in the area. The Commission has already started to provide special economic and humanitarian assistance (€ 2 million) to the region. C 340 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
The EU is keeping the security situation under regular review. At its meeting on 19 March, the Council welcomed the interim report of Mr Solana, High Representative, on further EU action concerning south- east Serbia and invited him to continue his work on an EU strategy for that region in collaboration with the Presidency and the Commission.
The EU is committed to the full implementation of the 1244 UN SC resolution on Kosovo. The Council finally wants to recall the substantial support which the EU is making available for the stabilisation and development of Kosovo. EU Member States have made the largest contribution to KFOR, as well as providing police and judiciary, and have supplied the majority of funding for the OSCE efforts with regard to institution-building and civil society. The EC has been the largest donor of humanitarian assistance, and remains the lead actor in the field of reconstruction and economic development, not only in financial terms but also through its responsibility for/leadership of Pillar 4 of UNMIK.
However, the EU has made it clear that further assistance will have to be accompanied by the readiness of the Kosovars to help quell ethnic violence and their efforts towards reconciliation.
(2001/C 340 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0463/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Council (20 February 2001)
Subject: EU-Turkey partnership
The French National Assembly recently adopted a resolution recognising the genocide of the Armenians. Turkey responded with retaliatory measures of a mainly economic nature, cancelling a number of contracts with French companies. On 13 December 1999, the European Council meeting in Helsinki decided to recognise Turkey as a candidate country for accession to the EU, and to draw up an accession partnership and a single financial framework to assist Turkey towards accession.
Does the Council consider that Turkey’s ‘economic retaliation’ against France, and its unilateral termination of contracts are politically and legally compatible with the EU-Turkey customs union or that such conduct is consistent with the criteria laid down by the European Council in Copenhagen?
Reply (10 July 2001)
The retaliatory measures taken against France after the adoption of the law concerning official recognition of the Armenian genocide were aimed at projects of a bilateral nature. Nevertheless, the Commission has responsibility for ensuring the proper application of the Association Agreement and the Customs Union with Turkey and is following the situation closely. It has pointed out that the retaliatory measures can only be counter-productive at a time when Turkey is being invited to enter into an accession partnership and has recently adopted a national programme for the taking over of the Community ‘acquis’.
The European Union will consider whether any measures need to be taken in the context of the existing EU-Turkey agreements and the pre-accession process.
(2001/C 340 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0466/01 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council (20 February 2001)
Subject: Assessment of consequences of bombing Yugoslavia
The ‘Balkans Syndrome’ has justifiably caused alarm throughout Europe concerning the consequences of the bombing of Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/33
Will the Council say whether the European Environmental Agency (EEA) which is funded by EU citizens through the Community budget has undertaken a study of the environmental pollution in the former Yugoslavia caused by the use of depleted uranium shells and the destruction of many chemical and other factories?
Has the EEA undertaken an assessment of the health consequences for inhabitants of the regions which were bombed and for citizens (both soldiers and civilians) of the European Union serving, residing or studying in the affected areas? Has any research been carried out into environmental pollution in the EU Member States having borders with Yugoslavia? If it has not looked into these matters, why not? Precisely what work is it engaged in?
Reply
(16 July 2001)
1. In accordance with Council Regulation No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990, as amended by Council Regulation No 933/1999 of 29 April 1999, one task of the European Environment Agency (EEA) is to provide the Community and the Member States with objective information necessary for framing and implementing sound and effective environmental policies. To that end, in particular it provides the Commission with the necessary information to carry out successfully its task of identifying, preparing and evaluating measures and legislation in the field of the environment. Since the role of the EEA is, in particular, to support and assist the Commission, the Council does not have detailed information on its activities except when the EEA reports to the Commission, to the Council and to the European Parliament according to provisions of the above Council Regulation.
2. The Council is not aware of any study by the European Environment Agency of the environmental pollution in the former Yugoslavia caused by the use of depleted uranium shells and the destruction of many chemical and other factories.
Therefore it is recommended that the Honourable Member address questions relating to the detailed activities of the EEA to the Commission.
3. At their meeting on 22 and 23 January 2001, Ministers discussed the issue of depleted uranium and agreed to re-examine it in the light of scientific evidence to be compiled by the Article 31 Committee (Euratom Treaty), as well as by competent NATO bodies. The conclusions of the report by the Article 31 Committee (Euratom Treaty) were published on 6 March 2001. The Council is currently assessing these reports. Furthermore, at their meeting on 9 April 2001, Ministers decided to remain committed to following possible further investigations closely and reexamining the issue in the future, due to the apparent health and environmental problems in the region.
(2001/C 340 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0473/01 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(23 February 2001)
Subject: USA antiballistic missile system and global strategic stability
According to the international press, the statements made by the United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at the ‘Wehrkunde’ conference in Munich on 2, 3 and 4 February 2000 marked a dramatic shift in relations between the Bush administration and the European Union and have confronted the Union with decisions that are clearly faits accomplis in the area of the National Missile Defence system, abrogating, de facto, the ABM treaty of 1972.
Referring to President George W. Bush’s ‘moral and constitutional duty’ to defend his people, Secretary Rumsfeld has entirely failed to honour the undertaking that was made to consult the United States’ allies on the introduction of a high-technology defence system that is as futuristic as it is unjustifiable. The system threatens to destabilise the existing delicate geopolitical situation by sparking off the militarisation of space, which will lead, over the coming decades, to complete strategic dominance over the whole planet by the United States. C 340 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Further strongly critical statements made by Donald Rumsfeld and other representatives from the United States delegation on the European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI), EU reservations about the role of Turkey and the further enlargement of NATO have raised the prospect of unacceptable vetoes being imposed on initiatives taken by the Council and the Commission with the approval of the European Parliament.
1. Does the Council not consider that the issue of this dramatic shift in transatlantic relations should be addressed as a matter of urgency with a view to adopting a common European position on the diktats imposed by the United States at the ‘Wehrkunde’ conference in Munich?
2. Does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, not consider that he should report back immediately to the European Parliament on the official and unofficial exchanges which took place in Munich and on the ways in which Europe should react diplomatically and politically?
Reply
(10 July 2001)
1. The Council does not agree that there has been a dramatic shift in transatlantic relations. There are frequent not to say continuous contacts between the European Union and the United States on the views of the incoming Administration on European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) as on other issues. The Council is confident that any differences will be resolved by this process of steady diplomacy and exchange. It welcomes the assurances given publicly and in private meetings most recently by Secretary of State Powell during the recent Troika visit to Washington, when he expressed satisfaction with the ESDP which would raise European capabilities. The EU also welcomes the US administration’s assurances that it will consult fully with its European allies on US plans to develop a missile defence system.
2. The High Representative, Dr Javier Solana, does address the European Parliament regularly on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, most recently on 31 January 2001 and he intends to continue to brief the European Parliament on the development of the Union’s foreign and security policy, but he cannot be expected to report immediately to the European Parliament on his many informal consultations.
(2001/C 340 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0475/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(21 February 2001)
Subject: Freshwater fishing in Ireland: European subsidies for unattained objectives in the field of tourism, fisheries and nature conservation
1. Does the Commission recall that, in November 1995, the European Regional Development Fund paid a first tranche of IEP 777 000 which represented 75 % of the cost of a project under the tourism operational programme (OP) for Ireland to be carried out by the Western Regional Fisheries Board (WRFB) over a five-year period at a total cost approaching IEP 3 million?
2. Does the Commission also recall that the programme referred to in point 1 above is supposed to result in the promotion and development of the Western Lakes System involving Loughs Corrib, Mask, Carra and Arrow and that that programme is presented as part of a strategy to attract foreign tourists to western Ireland and increase revenue from game angling, while it should also contribute, pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC (1) to the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna?
3. Can the Commission confirm that the cost of the Western Lakes System programme increased initially from IEP 3 million to IEP 5 million and is now running at IEP 7 million? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/35
4. Has the European subsidy now been exhausted, apart from the continued use of the boats, motor cycles, nets and jeeps acquired with that subsidy and not yet amortised?
5. What is the basis for the complaints appearing in the Irish press that IEP 3,3 million has suddenly been withdrawn from the subsidy, with the result that 16 young people employed by the WRFB have been made redundant?
6. Are any applications for further subsidies currently being processed?
7. Has the money spent over the past three years actually led to the intended increase in the number of game anglers in the region, or is my information correct that the objective has not been attained?
8. Is there any possibility of a demand being be made for repayment in part or in full of subsidies not devoted to the stated objective? Does the Commission intend to pursue that line of approach?
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2001)
1. The initial costs of developing Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra was estimated at IEP 3 million. Over the five years of the programme IEP 2,5 million were invested. The actual cost of the western lakes project is IEP 2 459 657 of which IEP 1 844 743 (75 %) was paid by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
2. The programme was to develop Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra (not Lough Arrow) and was extremely successful at improving the stocks and catches of wild brown trout in Lough Mask and most spectacularly in Lough Corrib which, as a result of the development programme, had the best fishing in 2000 in over 12 years. The lakes are being promoted very successfully by two specific product marketing groups for game angling and the revenue from game fishing has increased very significantly. Data indicate major gains in the recovery of the flora and fauna of river corridors as a consequence of this programme. A recovery in marginaland aquatic plants, the aquatic macro-invertebrate fauna, fish stocks (both salmonid and non-salmonid species stickleback lamprey etc.) and certain species of birds are clearly evident where works have been carried out.
The project did not include Lough Arrow, which is in the North Western region. However, a stream restoration project for Lough Arrow, submitted by the North Western Board, was also funded under the programme. The amount of the grant was IEP 316 600, of which IEP 237 450 (75 %) was paid by the ERDF.
3. The costs for the western lakes programme were estimated in 1996 at IEP 3 million based on the time requested to do the work and the duration of the programme. During the five-year time frame IEP 2,5 million was invested. To complete parts of the catchment not previously considered possible under the last programme will cost an additional IEP 3 million.
The total cost of the Lough Arrow Project was IEP 316 600. The project was delivered within budget and no additional funding was sought.
4. The European co-financing was fully exhausted at the end of the tourism angling measure of the Irish operational programme for tourism. The last claim was made in November 1999. There is no on-going Community funding being provided in respect of Lough Arrow.
5. During the programme 16 additional staff were recruited by the Western Regional Fisheries Board to undertake the development programme. When funding ceased there was no more funding to maintain their employment and they were laid off.
6. No applications are currently being considered for funding. C 340 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
7. As indicated by the Western Regional Fisheries Board (WRFB), there has been an enormous increase in the numbers of anglers fishing on Lough Corrib in particular and to a lesser extent on Lough Mask. Lough Corrib is now regarded as the best destination in Europe for wild brown trout and currently it is impossible to get a booking on the lake during the peak angling periods. Initial reports from the tourism operators are that the year 2000 was unprecedented in its success and the lake fished extremely well throughout the entire season. Indications during the year 2000 were that brown trout angling on Lough Mask had also shown a significant improvement.
According to the information received from the North Western Regional Fisheries Board (NWRFB) in relation to Lough Arrow, the project was carried out over the period 1998-2000 and would not be expected to have resulted yet in any increase in the number of game anglers. The purpose of the project was to provide a major boost to stocks of wild trout in Lough Arrow by improving spawning and nursery streams. Such a project will not, by its very nature, yield results in terms of increased numbers of anglers for a period of 3-4 years, after which time the works will result in an increased stock of adult trout in the lake. It should be noted that a monitoring programme has been carried out on streams, following the works. The results are extremely encouraging as they show a very significant increase in numbers of juvenile trout. Dr Martin O’Grady, Senior Research Officer, Central Fisheries Board, has stated that the streams will, for the first time, be able to provide a sufficient number of wild fish to stock Lough Arrow where, traditionally, stocks of wild fish had to be supplemented by hatchery reared fish. All the evidence, therefore, is that the project has been extremely successful.
8. All the funds were spent on the specific objectives of the plan as proposed and all were covered by the eligible criteria as laid out under the tourism angling measure of the Irish operational programme for tourism.
(2001/C 340 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0478/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(21 February 2001)
Subject: Freshwater fishing in Ireland: restoration of a natural balance instead of a continuation of the extermination policy
1. Does the Commission recall the letter dated 15 September 1997 (ref. SG(97)D/84642) from its then President, Mr Jacques Santer, to Mrs Caroline Jackson, MEP, in which he pledged that, where necessary, the element in the programme aimed at ‘stock control’ (i.e. pike culling) would be reformed and that a new project manager would be appointed for the Corrib System Development Programme? Have those commitments been honoured yet? If not, why not?
2. Can the Commission confirm that a further culling of pike took place between the autumn of 1998 and April 1999, and subsequently in the spring of 2000, when any pike discovered were killed?
3. Can it also confirm that, each year, six of the seven Regional Fishery Boards in Ireland are still carrying out a policy of pike culling during the pike spawning season and that such culling took place, inter alia, in December 2000 in Lough Arrow, which comes under the responsibility of the North Western Regional Fisheries Board (NWRFB)? Does such ongoing extermination of pike take place as part of a programme that is financially supported in any way whatsoever by the European Union?
4. Does the Commission see any possibility of terminating this merry-go-round of implementation, suspension and renewal of extermination programmes, which has been going on for years now, by ensuring that it no longer forms part of the fisheries policy? Is the Commission prepared to make the granting of any further financial aid conditional upon pike culling being prohibited or, at best, permitted on the basis of strict authorisation which would be granted only in exceptional cases?
5. What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that, after long years of neglect, the lakes in western Ireland finally receive the treatment they require to restore them to health, treatment which will result in the attainment of the original aid objectives such as a reduction in pollution, the promotion of tourism and the management of the natural fish stocks? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/37
6. Is the Commission prepared to offer Ireland further aid for a new programme which does not interfere with the ratios of the various species of fish found in the lakes and rivers but which actually contributes to the restoration of a natural balance and to the promotion of tourism?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2001)
1. According to the information received from the Western Regional Fisheries Board (WRFB), the development programme referred to in the letter of September 1997 was completed successfully in 1999 and all development targets met. It has been extremely successful in enhancing the wild brown trout stocks. The project was managed in a professional manner by the Board concerned and has been audited by international experts in this particular field. The auditor’s report indicated that the programme had been completed to an extremely high standard. Subsequent scientific monitoring of developed streams confirms the success of the programme in flora, fauna, fish stock and avian terms.
2. As indicated by the WRFB, it is the policy of the Fisheries Boards to manage the introduced pike stocks in the waters specifically designated as salmonid waters and to ensure that these are specifically managed to optimise trout stocks. This is an on-going annual programme. Removed pike are also transferred to other pike waters in the region, of which there are 40 lakes.
3. As per the information provided by the WRFB, the great western lakes were always managed as wild brown trout fisheries and to that end stock management is part of the overall programme for ensuring that trout stocks are optimised. When pike are removed some are tagged and transferred to other waters.
According to the North Western Regional Fisheries Board (NWRFB), pike control operations on trout lakes are carried out on an annual basis, mainly during the pike spawning season. As regards the culling of pike on Lough Arrow in December 2000, no gill nets were used during that period. However, an experiment with new electro-fishing equipment took place on 21 December 2000, in the course of which just two pike were captured and removed from the lake. This hardly represented extermination of pike and was not co-financed by Community funds.
4. As maintainted by the WRFB, the preservation of the West of Ireland wild brown trout is vital. The three western lakes mentioned above are the most important wild brown trout lakes remaining in Europe. To allow these lakes to deteriorate to lakes predominated by coarse fish species including pike would be a disaster and a destruction of the natural heritage. There are thousands of lakes in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe predominated by coarse fish species, including pike, and extremely few wild brown trout limestone lakes of consequence. All the top scientific evidence indicates that the strategy being adopted is both correct and necessary. To allow these lakes to change would be to deny Europe one of the last remaining strongholds of wild brown trout in the interests of those wishing to expand the realms of the introduced species. The policy of stock management is unique to Ireland as the country holds the last remaining stronghold of the species and is supported by hundreds of man-years of scientific expertise and research.
There are over 500 quality pike fisheries in Ireland which are managed by the seven Regional Fisheries Boards. No pike are removed from any of these 500 waters. In fact the Fisheries Boards have successfully sought the introduction of a by-law to protect the pike stocks in all of these waters. i.e. anglers’ catches are strictly limited. Pike control is only exercised on 10 lake wild brown trout fisheries and a small number of brown trout/salmon rivers in the entire country.
As stated by the NWRFB, there is no ‘merry-go-round of implementation, suspension and renewal of extermination programmes’. Since it took over responsibility for management of the major trout lakes in 1985, the Board has had a consistent policy of controlling of pike stocks and such a policy has never been suspended. Pike control is a crucially important element of management of trout fisheries and it would be a serious error if further Community aid for fisheries development were to be made conditional on pike culling being prohibited. Indeed, there would be no basis whatsoever for such a condition being imposed. C 340 E/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
5. According to the information provided by the WRFB, the developments commenced in 1996 have started a major revival in wild brown trout in the great western lakes. The resultant improvement in fish stocks has endorsed the management and scientific methods used to achieve these goals. The Fisheries Boards also welcome the Water Framework Directive, Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1) and the additional efforts that will be made to ensure the preservation of these lakes in their pristine condition. In addition the promotion of these lakes as wild brown trout fisheries of international importance second to none in Europe has already borne very significant results. The continuation of the programme would further enhance the lakes their rivers and streams and the wild brown trout.
As per the NWRFB, any Community action is supported to ensure water quality is restored on the major lakes, virtually all of which have shown significant signs of euthrophication over the past ten years or more. As stated above, the primary responsibility in this regard rests with the various local authorities and the Environment Protection Agency (EPA).
6. As indicated by the WRFB, the fish species in the lakes include a number of introduced species (pike, perch and roach). It has been clearly demonstrated that management of non-native fish species will require the necessary promotion of native species in order to ensure that these lakes remain predominately salmonid lakes. The restoration of the lakes and all related habitat should rely on the best scientific advice available and it has been the objective of the Boards in question to ensure that any works undertaken are in the light of the best scientific evidence. Any future funds made available will of course be for the works supported by sound scientific advice.
According to the NWRFB, the situation is that pike are not a native species and were introduced to Ireland from abroad. They are not, therefore, part of a ‘natural balance’ in the lakes. As they prey heavily on trout, it is essential to control their numbers in order to maintain a healthy stock of trout, a native species which have been present in the lakes for more than ten thousand years.
(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
(2001/C 340 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0485/01 by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) and Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Council
(23 February 2001)
Subject: State aid to support the fishing industry
The Commission recently opened a formal investigation into state aid schemes in France and Spain which are providing support to the fishing industry following recent increases in fuel prices.
Speaking before the European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries on 10 October 2000, the French President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Jean Glavany, agreed to ask the Commission about what measures might reasonably be taken to alleviate the pressure of such structural crises in the industry.
Can the Council outline what joint efforts have been made in this regard?
Reply
(10 July 2001)
The Council has received no proposal for any particular action by the Community in this respect. It would, however, recall that any national measures must comply with the Community’s competition rules and rules on state aid. Such measures should be notified to the Commission, be degressive and limited in time.
The question was raised on the Presidency’s initiative at the Council on 17 November 2000. It has not been further pursued. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/39
(2001/C 340 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0504/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Council
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Transparency and the Council of Ministers
When did the Council last consider proposals to make the conduct of its legislative business more transparent and less secretive, what were the proposals, and what was the outcome of the discussion?
What plan does the Presidency have to introduce greater transparency into the work of the Council and to reduce the secrecy with which it conducts its consideration of legislative proposals?
Reply
(10 July 2001)
Following the suggestions made by the Secretary-General in his Third report on the implementation of Council Decision 93/731/EC on public access to Council documents, the Council examined whether certain categories of Council documents, in particular those concerning the legislative process, could be systematically made available to the public on the Internet.
The discussions within the Council lead to the adoption by the Council on 9 April 2001 of a Decision on making certain categories of Council documents available to the public. The purpose is to put on the Internet as many Council documents as possible without waiting for requests from the public for access to those documents.
Under this Decision, which will take effect on 1 May 2001, the General Secretariat of the Council will make the following documents available to the public via the Council’s Internet website (http://ue.eu.int), provided that they are not classified:
documents not authored by the Council or a Member State, which have been made public by their author or with his agreement;
provisional agendas of meetings of the various formations of the Council;
any text adopted by the Council and intended to be published in the Official Journal.
Moreover, provided that they are clearly not covered by any of the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Council Decision 93/731/EC, the General Secretariat may also make the following documents available to the public as soon as they have been circulated: provisional agendas of committees and working parties, as well as information notes, reports, progress reports and reports on the state of discussions in the Council or one of its preparatory bodies which do not reflect individual positions of delegations, excluding Legal Service opinions and contributions.
With regard to legislative documents, i.e. documents concerning the examination and adoption of a legislative act within the meaning of Article 7 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the following categories of documents will be made available to the public:
cover notes and copies of letters concerning legislative acts addressed to the Council by other institutions or bodies of the European Union or by a Member State;
notes submitted to Coreper and/or to the Council for approval (‘I/A’ and ‘A’ Item Notes), as well as the draft legislative acts to which they refer;
decisions adopted by the Council during the Codecision procedure and joint texts approved by the Conciliation Committee.
Moreover, after adoption of one of the acts during the Codecision procedure or final adoption of the act concerned the General Secretariat will make available to the public any legislative documents relating to this act which were drawn up before this decision and which are not covered by any of the exceptions laid down in Article 4, paragraph 1 of Decision 93/731/EC, such as information notes, reports, progress reports C 340 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
and reports on the state of discussions in the Council or in one of its preparatory bodies (‘outcomes of proceedings’), excluding Legal Service opinions and contributions.
It should be noted that under this Decision a Member State may request the General Secretariat not to make available to the public a document emanating from that Member State.
This decision by the Council will prejudge neither the application of Council Decision 93/731/EC nor the content of the act concerning the general principles and limits governing the right of access to documents which has to be adopted pursuant to Article 255(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
(2001/C 340 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0509/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE), Den Dover (PPE-DE), Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE), Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE), Roger Helmer (PPE-DE), Bashir Khanbhai (PPE-DE), Neil Parish (PPE-DE), Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: The role of the Economic and Social Committee and the prioritising of expenditures within the European Union
Can the Commission state what role it sees the Economic and Social Committee (Ecosoc) as having now that the European Parliament is directly elected, and whether it believes that the continued expenditure of hundreds of millions of euros of taxpayers’ money on the Committee is justified and likely to command the support of the European taxpayer if knowledge of these levels of expenditure was better publicised?
In particular, in view of Commission President Prodi’s statement last year to the effect that the European Commission needed more funds to carry out its core tasks and the Commission’s refusal at the end of last year to take on certain new tasks until it had received additional funds, does the Commission feel that if it cannot find funds through elimination of wasteful expenditure within the Commission that it should suggest to the Member States that they agree to wind down the Economic and Social Committee and use part of the savings (including, where appropriate, the transfer of staff from Ecosoc) to pay for the additional tasks which the Commission may in the future be asked to carry out?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(10 April 2001)
The Commission takes the view that, pursuant to the Treaty of Rome and its successive amendments, the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) is an institutional body with advisory status whose role has not changed as a result of direct elections to Parliament. Furthermore, under the Treaty of Nice, the Committee is defined as a body consisting of representatives of the various economic and social components of organised civil society.
Its operational costs are justified by virtue of its consultation role, which is compulsory where the Treaty so provides; the Committee may also be consulted by Parliament. The relevant expenditure forms part of the Community budget, which is in the public domain.
The Commission is in the process of reorganising its expenditure priorities in the light of the strategic objectives contained in its programme. It has no intention of financing its new tasks from any savings made through cutbacks to the activities of the other institutions or institutional bodies, including the ESC. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/41
(2001/C 340 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0511/01 by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Council
(23 February 2001)
Subject: TEN’s and the development of the inland waterways
A report on bottlenecks in waterways has been submitted to the European Commission (Lille, 23 November 2000). The report reviews the status of the trans-European transport network of waterways five years after the European TEN framework decisions were put in place. The report reviews the history of the TEN policies, starting with the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment (1992). The initial list of projects has been evaluated and defined in further detail by the Christophersen Group and has been shaped by the principles established at the Essen Council in 1994, which resulted in a list of 14 priority projects which does not contain any projects related to inland waterways. It is regrettable that waterways development finds itself at the bottom of the priority list.
The waterways net work urgently needs investment in its infrastructure in order to facilitate intermodal transport (sea-river, river-rail, river-road), to remove a number of existing bottlenecks and to construct a number of missing links that will enhance the network function.
In view of the further development of intermodal transport, what actions have the Ministers of Transport of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands taken to realise an integrated trans-European waterways network?
Are the Ministers aware of the fact that an optimised network for transport by container vessels necessitates a minimum height of bridges over TEN waterways of 7,10 million (3-layer containers).
There will be a meeting of European Transport Ministers in Rotterdam, the Netherlands on 5 and 6 September 2001 on Inland Shipping at which they will announce a ‘Declaration of Rotterdam’. Do the Ministers intend to include in their declaration the list of Priority projects for waterways development, their budgets and the time-schedules linked to such projects?
Are the Ministers prepared to take more measures that maximise the shift in freight transport from road to water, in order to reduce traffic density (and its consequences such as noise and air pollution) on certain motorways?
In view of the enlargement of the European Union, what actions have the Ministers in mind to realise optimal inland waterway transport on the Danube towards the Black Sea? (e.g. obstructions between Straubing and Vilshofen)?
Reply
(10 July 2001)
The question put by the Honourable Member contains many points that the Council can only take note of. It is not for the Council to comment on individual or joint activities by certain Member States or on the projects of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, which comprises 30 European States. Certain specific aspects raised by the Honourable Member are within the remit of the national, regional or even local authorities.
It should nevertheless be noted that one of the key strands of the European Union’s transport policy aims at encouraging the expansion of inter-modal transport with a view to striking a better balance between the various modes of transport, giving preference to the safest and most environmentally-friendly ones.
The development of inland navigation plays a major role in this context. The Council recognises the importance of the Rhine-Main-Danube route which was identified as a priority corridor across Europe by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport in Crete in 1994 and in Helsinki in 1997. With the prospect of enlargement the Danube is playing an increasingly vital role as a communication channel linking the territory of the European Union with the candidate countries in the region, as well as with the Black Sea. C 340 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Moreover, it is frequently emphasised in the enlargement process, at the level of the Europe Agreement bodies that are developing and monitoring the pre-accession strategy, that what is sought is a multi-modal approach to developing the transport network. In this context, issues relating to navigation on the Danube are also broached, with regard to both managing the river in the candidate countries and to restoring navigation on the river after the Kosovo war.
In this connection the Council has supported the activities of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River with a view to rendering the river navigable again; in July 2000 the Council approved the Community contribution to the International Fund for Clearance of the Fairway of the Danube, representing 85 % of the estimated total cost of the project.
(2001/C 340 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0513/01 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council
(23 February 2001)
Subject: Declaration of state of emergency and serious situation in Ecuador
The economic austerity policy pursued by the Ecuadorian Government in an attempt to resolve the grave economic crisis that has been affecting the country for more than three years has been accompanied by serious social unrest. In addition to the emigration of a large section of the working population prompted by poverty, there has also been increasing mobilisation and protest on the part of the section of the population most severely affected by the crisis, mainly the Indian population.
Apart from a crackdown by the forces of order, the Ecuadorian authorities have responded to this social unrest by declaring a state of emergency.
Given the ethnic character of the protest, which has so far remained essentially peaceful, is the Council not afraid that the current economic crisis might jeopardise the plurinational and democratic State enshrined in the country’s new constitution?
Has the Council expressed its opposition to the state of emergency that has been declared, or does it intend to do so?
Will the Council call on the Ecuadorian Government to guarantee the civil and political freedoms of the population during the protests, provided they are peaceful, in order to prevent the situation from deteriorating?
Given the conditions of real poverty faced by around 70 % of the population at a time of political instability, does the Council not think that the international community should tackle the problem of Ecuador’s external debt and the need to rebuild its economy in the context of the Paris Club and on the basis of criteria that seek to avoid an aid-based approach and focus on large-scale national and international investment?
What other initiatives will the Council take to help Ecuador overcome this difficult situation?
Reply
(13 July 2001)
The Council is aware of the difficult economic situation experienced by Ecuador and the hardship endured by the poorest sections of the population in the current context of ‘dollarisation’ and economic adjustments undertaken by the Government at the behest of the IMF.
In January and February the Council monitored very closely the events to which the Honourable Member refers in his question. The Council believes that there can be no solution to these problems outside the framework of a democratic system. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/43
The Council has expressed its willingness to contribute to the efforts made by Ecuador and all the Andean countries to strengthen democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These are the pillars on which economic co-operation and political dialogue between the EU and those countries are based. The same message was conveyed to Ecuador and the other Andean countries at the recent ministerial meeting between the EU and the Andean Community, in Santiago de Chile on 28 March 2001.
(2001/C 340 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0524/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council (23 February 2001)
Subject: Discussion of EU staff’s financial conditions
The Swedish Government has made attempts in the past to initiate discussion of EU staff’s financial conditions. On 22 September 1997, the Swedish Prime Minister, Göran Persson, met the then Commission President Santer. Persson criticised the high salaries of staff but his views were not given a sympathetic hearing. After the meeting he said that they would ‘probe a little deeper’ into the matter. Nothing appears to have happened since.
However, Sweden now holds the Presidency of the Council and Göran Persson is still Prime Minister. What steps is the current Presidency taking to hold talks about EU staff’s financial conditions and bringing their salaries into line with current salary levels in the Member States?
Reply (10 July 2001)
The Council would remind the Honourable Member that in accordance with Article 283 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of those Communities are laid down by the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the other institutions concerned. The emoluments and social security benefits of officials are set out under Title V of the Staff Regulations.
The Council will ensure that this issue is studied further, in particular in the light of the Orientation Papers on Pay and Pensions presented by Mr Kinnock, on 28 February 2001, which have been adopted by the Commission. This document is currently under discussion with the trade union organisations in a high- level group. The Council is ready to examine the formal proposals from the Commission as soon as it presents them.
(2001/C 340 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0533/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (23 February 2001)
Subject: Italy’s investigation into Balkan syndrome
Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, has requested the Ghent toxicologist Aubin Heyndrickx to carry out a study of Balkan veterans who are ill or who have died. In the past Mr Heyndrickx has acted on a number of occasions as an expert in chemical warfare. However, fellow scientists accuse him of using ‘less than scientific’ research methods. In 1995 Heyndrickx was given a one- year suspended jail sentence for forgery. Four years later he was in the news again because a court in South Africa suspected him of having close links with Dr Wouter Basson, better known as ‘Dr Death’. Basson was working on a vaccine for eradicating the black race.
1. When did the Commission decide to request the Ghent toxicologist Aubin Heyndrickx to carry out an Italian study of Balkan veterans who are ill or who have died? C 340 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
2. At whose suggestion did the Commission decide to do this?
3. Is the Commission aware of Mr Heyndrickx’ reputation, and in particular claims by fellow scientists that he uses ‘less than scientific’ research methods? If so, why did the Commission nevertheless turn to Mr Heyndrickx? If not, will the Commission seek further information about Mr Heyndrickx’ scientific reputation?
4. Is the Commission aware of the close links which Mr Heyndrickx is alleged, by the court in South Africa, to have had with Dr Wouter Basson? If so, why did the Commission nevertheless decide to engage Mr Heyndrickx? If not, will the Commission seek further information about the close links which Mr Heyndrickx is alleged to have had with Dr Basson?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(6 June 2001)
Mr Heyndrickx on his own initiative sent several letters to the President of the Commission.
The Commission has not charged Mr Heyndrickx to undertake any studies mentioned in the Honourable Member’s question nor is it aware of any other activities of his.
(2001/C 340 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0542/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(23 February 2001)
Subject: Cat and dog furs
The American organisation the Humane Society and various European animal rights associations have recently denounced the fact that 2 million cats and dogs are killed every year for their fur.
The numbers are shocking, particularly since the animals are killed in a most barbarous fashion, by being skinned alive, an absolutely horrible practice.
The people who wear these furs are not aware of the fact that they are dog or cat furs. They are imported concealed as components of clothes or fluffy toys in bad taste, which are deliberately labelled in an incomprehensible manner.
This gruesome trade originates mainly in China, Thailand, Korea and the Philippines and Europe is the main market. Most traders who sell clothes made from ‘imitation fur’ which is not imitation at all are acting in good faith. It is the case, however, that at the beginning of the 1990s a skiing equipment company used dog fur to line its ski boots.
1. Can the Commission say whether it is aware of these revolting activities;
2. What measures it intends to propose to stop this horrendous trade;
3. Whether it is possible to require checks to be carried out and labelling to correspond to the materials actually used for clothes and other products? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/45
Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission
(30 April 2001)
The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Question E-3981/00 from Mr Stevenson (1) and P-0359/01 from Mrs McNally (2).
Checks which are carried out at the border ensure that the products imported comply with the import conditions established in the Community.
There is no Community legislation requiring labelling for any natural fur product. However, manufacturers or importers are free to use voluntary labelling.
(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 232. (2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 220.
(2001/C 340 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0543/01 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) and Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission
(23 February 2001)
Subject: BSE risks
On 7 February 2001 the European Commission submitted three proposals for decisions designed to combat the risks arising from exposure to BSE to the Standing Veterinary Committee.
The proposals provide for exemptions conditional on the obligation to remove the spinal cord from cattle over the age of 12 months (the spinal cord can be removed at the place of sale to the consumer) in respect of five countries: Austria, Finland, Sweden, Portugal and the United Kingdom.
There are no limits on the export of beef from Austria, Finland and Sweden into the other Member States. The same is not true of beef from the United Kingdom and Portugal. The provision could therefore be in breach of the rules on competition which govern the internal market.
It would perhaps be advisable to grant derogations on the basis of firms rather than countries. Such derogations should only be granted to firms subject to strict controls covering the entire production chain. This would ensure effective consumer protection and provide better safeguards with regard to the danger of the distortion the market to the detriment of the countries on which trade restrictions have been imposed.
Can the Commission say what provisions it intends to adopt in this area?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(14 May 2001)
The Scientific Steering Committee, in its opinion of 12 January 2001 on the safety with regard to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) of certain bovine tissues and certain animal-derived products, indicated its view that the vertebral column of bovines over 12 months should be regarded as specified risk material (SRM). It also indicated that in assessing the risk to human health posed by the bovine vertebral column, account should be taken of the likelihood of the animal being infected, and made particular reference to the existence of an effective feed ban.
Following this opinion and the conclusion of the Agriculture Council of 29 January 2001, the Commission brought forward a proposal to the Standing Veterinary Committee of 7 February 2001 (1) adding the vertebral column to the list of SRMs, but giving certain derogations to United Kingdom, Portugal, Austria, Finland and Sweden. The derogations for Austria, Finland and Sweden are based principally on their low Geographical BSE Risk; those for the United Kingdom and Portugal are based on the demonstration of an effective feed ban. C 340 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Legislation on BSE is agreed at Community level and enforced by Member State authorities. In the case of the feed ban that forms the basis of the Portuguese and United Kingdom derogations, it would be difficult to envisage how such a measure could be enforced and assessed at anything less than a national level.
(1) OJ L 84, 23.3.2001.
(2001/C 340 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0552/01 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council
(20 February 2001)
Subject: United States missile defence
In a recent interview published on 6 February 2001 in the International Herald Tribune, George Robertson, NATO Secretary-General, said that NATO was the most suitable institution to discuss the development of the missile defence system which George Bush, the newly-elected President of the USA, has brought back into the news with plans for its development.
In view of both the extreme importance of this issue for European countries and the creation of the CFSP within the European Union framework:
1. Does the Council not consider that limiting discussions on this subject exclusively to the NATO setting will produce conclusions without the Union’s participation at a time when the EU is establishing the CFSP?
2. Is the Council examining the possibility of bringing the subject up for discussion within the European Union to determine the Member States’ common positions on this issue?
3. What is the Council’s position on the topic, in view of the objections to the US leadership’s intentions from a number of EU Member States, NATO and other countries?
Reply
(10 July 2001)
There is so far no Council position on the National Missile Defence System. But as the Honourable Member stated, several Member States have expressed their national views on the US plans. It should be also recalled that according to Article 22 of the Treaty on European Union, any Member State may refer to the Council any question relating to the common foreign and security policy.
The subject of NMD has been raised on several occasions during discussions between the Secretary General/High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Mr Solana, and his US counterparts. The Secretary General/High Representative has echoed the views expressed by a number of Member States on the importance of maintaining global stability through an agreed security framework. He has also underlined the need for full and transparent consultations between the US and its European allies on this issue.
Furthermore at the 2000 Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the EU reaffirmed the importance of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed in 1972 by the US and the Soviet Union as one of the pillars of strategic stability. The EU also stated that it wishes to see that Treaty preserved. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/47
(2001/C 340 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0573/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Infringement of Community law on cars belonging to individuals who move to Greece and to those temporarily resident in Greece
By charging an excessive ‘registration duty’, Greece is infringing the Community directive concerning the use of cars by EU citizens who transfer their residence to another country. It is also infringing the Community directive on the use of cars by EU citizens who are temporarily resident in Greece by not complying, inter alia, with the principle of the proportionality of sanctions, since it imposes excessive fines on temporary residents who own cars for private use. What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that Greece complies with the requirements of Community law?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(9 April 2001)
The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s opinion regarding the problems facing European citizens taking vehicles from other Member States with them when moving to Greece. The collection by the Greek administration of charges significantly exceeding the approximate cost of the services rendered for the registration of the vehicles in question is incompatible with Community law, and more specifically with Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals (1). The Commission has therefore initiated an infringement procedure against Greece under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
The Commission also shares the Honourable Member’s opinion regarding the temporary use in Greece of vehicles registered in other Member States. In response to petitions to Parliament and complaints from European citizens about a series of Greek administrative measures restricting the freedom to use vehicles registered in other Member States, the Commission has sent Greece a reasoned opinion (the second formal stage in the infringement procedure laid down in Article 226 of the EC Treaty). That reasoned opinion also highlights the disproportionate nature of the penalties applied.
The Commission will be pursuing both procedures in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty.
(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.
(2001/C 340 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0577/01 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(28 February 2001)
Subject: Freedom of association in Bulgaria
On 29 February 2000, the Constitutional Court in Bulgaria declared a Macedonian-based political party, OMO ‘llinden’ PIRIN, unconstitutional. That party was registered in 1999 and took part in the municipal elections in October 1999. It has always declared that it would respect the constitutional and legal system of Bulgaria and carry out its political activities peacefully. The party has lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights.
In answer to a previous Parliamentary Question (H-0290/00 (1)), the Council declared that the official translation of the unconstitutional act was not yet available. C 340 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Has the Council now received the official translation? Does it take the view that such decisions may violate the right of freedom of association and constitutes discrimination against a national minority? Has the Council asked for any explanation from the Bulgarian authorities?
Does the Council consider that such a decision is compatible with respect for the democratic criteria established in Copenhagen?
(1) Written reply dated 12 April 2000.
Reply
(10 July 2001)
The Council attaches the utmost importance to the respect, by the candidate countries, of the principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. With regard to Bulgaria, the Council notes that the Commission’s 2000 Regular Report on Bulgaria’s progress towards accession concluded that, in general, Bulgaria continued to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. The report stated, however, that ‘Concerning political representation of minorities, the Constitution forbids organisation of political parties on ethnic, racial or religious grounds. It could be desirable to clarify these Constitutional provisions with reference to the restrictions on the establishment of political parties, as it is important to ensure compatibility with international obligations.’
As regards the specific case of the declaration of the Constitutional Court in Bulgaria of 29 February 2000 that the Macedonian-based political party OMO ‘llinden’ PIRIN was unconstitutional, as the Honourable Parliamentarian recalls, an appeal has been lodged with the European Court of Human Rights. The Court’s decision on the case will assist the European Union in its analysis of the decision of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court in the light of the political criteria established by the Copenhagen European Council.
If it turns out that there has been a violation of the fundamental principles mentioned above then the European Union will make the appropriate representations to Bulgaria, particularly within the framework of the bodies established by the Europe Agreement.
(2001/C 340 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0582/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: Aid to help research scientists set up in business
There is a growing trend in America and Asia towards schemes whereby scientists and engineers working at official research establishments can opt to take either paid or unpaid leave in order to try to set up in business by themselves.
The aim of such schemes lies in creating an uninterrupted cycle in which applied research and support for innovation act as the stepping stones between basic research and the market.
Will the Commission say whether scientists and engineers working at the research establishments directly answerable to it can opt to take either paid or unpaid leave in order to try to set up small innovative undertakings? Do they stand to benefit from Community funding in embarking upon such a risky venture?
Answer givern by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(22 May 2001)
Commission decision of 7 January 1998 setting up a European technology transfer initiative (ETTI) at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) authorises the implementation of a number of specific actions in order to 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/49
promote technology transfer of the Communities’ research results and access to its research facilities. These actions may be summarised in the following: a technology transfer capital fund, an extended incubator, access to large scale facilities and education and training initiatives.
Within this ETTI’s last action, there is an indirect support that the JRC can provide to its researchers: an entrepreneurship training programme aimed mostly at young staff on short-term contracts. Pilot versions of this programme were run successfully in 1999 and 2000.
No specific direct Community funding is available for JRC researchers, either long term or short term contract holders, to start a company. As any other European researcher, they have access to the Community programmes for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
As regards paid or unpaid leave in order to set up a company, only Commission officials according to the staff regulations can apply for unpaid leave for a period of one year, renewable twice for one year periods. In any case if officials wish to exercise a paid or unpaid external activity while they are employed by the Commission, they have to ask for authorisation of such activity.
(2001/C 340 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/01 by Alexandros Baltas (PSE) to the Council
(2 March 2001)
Subject: Duties imposed by Brazil on canned peaches
The Brazilian authorities have imposed duty of 55 % on canned peaches. This duty is a discriminatory levy on canned peaches exported from Greece to Brazil and was imposed by the Brazilian authorities some five years ago.
It was to be reduced, however, each year until:
by December 2000 it would stand at 23 %, and
from 1 January 2001, it would be limited to 17 %.
I am informed, however, that in October 2000, the Brazilian authorities increased the duty to 55 % once again. At the same time, they launched an anti-dumping inquiry, though without imposing an interim duty. According to the Brazilian authorities, the duty was of a temporary nature and would be abolished on 31 December 2000 when the original arrangements would be reintroduced and the applicable duty reduced (on 1 January 2001) to 17 %. On 2 January 2001, however, the Brazilian authorities extended the validity of the 55 % duty until 30 June 2001 with a view to discussing the rate within Mercosur.
As a result Brazil’s action, producers and exporters of canned peaches lost the holiday period business and suffered a serious setback. In general, the pressure exerted on EU canned peaches from third countries is growing, threatening an important sector of European industry with disaster, which may snowball into negative repercussions for society as a whole (higher unemployment), the farming community and, by extension, the common agricultural policy, the environment, etc.
In the light of the above, will the Council say:
What measures it has taken to protect the canned peach sector and with what results?
What measures does the Council propose to take next?
To what extent are the practices adopted by Brazil taken into account and to what extent do they influence the policy pursued by the Council in talks and negotiations with Mercosur, of which Brazil is a member? C 340 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Reply
(10 July 2001)
The Council is aware of the difficulties faced by the Community’s canned peaches industry in some South American countries, including Brazil.
As far as Brazil is concerned, it must be noted that the 55 % duty referred to by the honourable parliamentarian is within the tariff level and, as a result, is consistent with Brazil’s WTO obligations. Consequently, any measures aiming at a reduction of this duty level will have to be addressed in other fora than the WTO for instance in the current bilateral negotiations between the EU and Mercosur, which are also mentioned in Mr Baltas’ question. In this context, the Council wishes to underline that it included in the mandate given to the Commission for these negotiations, an explicit call for trade liberalisation and for the dismantling of duties and charges on substantially all trade.
Regarding the Brazilian anti-dumping investigation launched on 25 October 2000, the Council will as a matter of course study very carefully its eventual outcome and, if necessary, react forcefully to any Brazilian action which would be in breach of Brazil’s WTO obligations.
(2001/C 340 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0599/01 by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission
(21 February 2001)
Subject: Freedom of movement for workers
The conditions governing the repayment of student loans negotiated in Sweden vary enormously depending on the country in which the borrower subsequently takes up residence. For a person working in Sweden, the annual repayments amount to a maximum of four per cent of annual income. If, however, a person works in another Member State, completely different terms apply. Up to five per cent of the total loan must be repaid every year irrespective of income. Taken over a year, the difference may amount to several thousand Swedish crowns. Obviously, the main groups to suffer under these provisions are low and middle-income earners, and part-time workers living in another Member State.
In March 2000, I asked the Commission whether the above rules were contrary to the fundamental freedom to seek work, and to live and work in another Member State.
The answer given by Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulos dated 12 April 2000 states that the Commission had urged Sweden to provide details of the Swedish provisions and that it would notify me of the outcome of the inquiries.
Now, almost a year later, I have still not been notified of the outcome of the Commission’s inquiries. Neither have there been any changes to Swedish law on the rules concerning the repayment of government student loans. People living in another Member State continue to be treated unfairly compared with those living in Sweden.
In the light of the foregoing, will the Commission say:
1. Whether the Swedish Government has replied to the Commission’s inquiry. If so, what was Sweden’s reply and is the Commission satisfied with the reply?
2. Whether it intends to initiate formal proceedings to enforce compliance with Union rules and regulations or take other measures if it is not satisfied with the reply (or has not received a reply)? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/51
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(20 April 2001)
The Commission regrets the delay in informing the Honourable Member of the outcome of its enquiries.
The Swedish authorities have informed the Commission about the reform of the Swedish system of student loans. A new Student Benefits Act (1999:1395) will enter into force on 1 July 2001. Under the new system, as of 1 July 2001, all persons who have to repay student loans will be treated in the same manner, whether they live in Sweden or abroad. Persons with outstanding loans on the basis of the old Student Benefit Act (1973:349) can ask after 1 July 2001 that the loans be repaid according to the provisions of the new Student Benefit Act (1999:1395).
The Commission has asked the Swedish authorities to provide information about the effects of the reform on those who work and live abroad and have outstanding loans on the basis of the old Student Benefits Act. On the basis of this information the Commission will assess the situation and thereafter decide if formal proceedings are needed or not.
(2001/C 340 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0603/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Council
(2 March 2001)
Subject: European Union statute for Member States’ capitals
The representative nature of the capitals of the Member States in connection with the institutional and administrative services which they have to render vis-à-vis the EU institutions by virtue of their status of state capital is a matter of some importance. Thus, there is a certain imbalance between the obligations of state capitals and those of other cities in the Union. To date, the former have not received any compensation which would enable them better to fulfil their role with greater institutional and financial support.
Does the Council consider that the European Union should adopt a Statute for State Capitals in the European Union so as to emphasise their nature as state capitals? If so, does not the Council consider that such a Statute should also make it possible for economic compensation to be paid and provide for an appropriate institutional rank for these cities which bear the burden of being the official capital of the state they represent?
Reply
(13 July 2001)
The Council has never been called upon to discuss this question.
(2001/C 340 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0617/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council
(2 March 2001)
Subject: Defence budgets of European NATO countries
What are the national defence budgets of the European countries assigned to NATO for the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001? C 340 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Reply
(10 July 2001)
The Council does not have the figures requested by the Honourable Member other than in the form available to the public, and as from the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
(2001/C 340 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0629/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(6 March 2001)
Subject: Lisbon European Council and financial services
1. The 2000 Lisbon European Council stated that steps should be taken to facilitate the successful participation of all investors in an integrated market eliminating barriers to investment in pension funds; promoting further integration and better functioning of government bond markets through greater consultation and transparency on debt issuing calendars, techniques and instruments, and improved functioning of cross-border sale and repurchase (repo) markets; enhancing the comparability of companies’ financial statements; and more intensive co-operation by EU financial market regulators. What steps have been take in this regard?
2. The 2000 Lisbon European Council stated that steps should be taken to ‘ensure full implementation of the Risk Capital Action Plan by 2003.’ Does the Commission believe this target will be met, and to what evidence can it point to support its view?
3. The 2000 Lisbon European Council stated that steps should be taken to ‘conclude, in line with the Helsinki European Council conclusions, the pending tax package.’ What steps have been taken in this regard?
4. The 2000 Lisbon European Council requested ‘the Council and the Commission, using the existing procedures, to present a report by Spring 2001 assessing the contribution of public finances to growth and employment, and assessing, on the basis of comparable data and indicators, whether adequate concrete measures are being taken in order to alleviate the tax pressure on labour … redirect public expenditure towards increasing the relative importance of capital accumulation … [and] ensure the long-term sustainability of public finances.’ When will this report be presented?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2001)
The conclusions of the Lisbon European Council (March 2000) afforded high priority to measures that would help to complete the Internal market for financial services and to improve the efficiency of Community financial markets. Several specific areas for action were identified in the conclusions and important progress has been made in these areas over the past year.
With respect to the implementation of the Financial Services Action Plan (FSAP), the Commission presented on 11 October 2000 a proposal for a directive on institutions for occupational retirement provision (1) (pension funds). One aim is to ensure that institutions enjoy sufficient freedom to develop an effective investment policy. This will be a decisive step towards the elimination of barriers to investment in pension funds.
The Commission presented on 13 February 2001 a proposal for a regulation (2) that would require all Community companies listed on a regulated market, including banks and insurance companies, to prepare consolidated accounts in accordance with International Accounting Standards (IAS). Member States would have the option to extend this requirement to unlisted companies and to the production of individual accounts. The Regulation would help eliminate barriers to cross-border trading in securities by enhancing the comparability of companies’ financial statements. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/53
More intensive co-operation by Community financial market regulators will be the result of an imminent Commission proposal for a directive on financial conglomerates. The proposed directive will require the appointment in individual cases of a co-ordinating supervisor. Another step towards closer co-operation between regulators was taken by setting up the Round Table of Regulators, comprised of the Chairmen and secretariats of all Community regulatory fora. This is an informal forum for the exchange of ideas and experience in the field of financial regulation.
In the mean time, there have been several developments contributing to the integration and improved functioning of government bond markets, notably the introduction of electronic trading in several of the Member States. There has also been further progress in the co-ordination of issuing techniques/instruments in the context of the Brouhns Group (3). In addition, the proposed Directive on collateral (4) should contribute to improving the functioning of the repro market.
In October 2000, the Commission published a further Communication to the Council and the Parliament reviewing progress in implementing the Risk Capital Action Plan (RCAP) (5). This Communication confirmed progress in developing Community risk capital markets since the late 1990’s, but noted that the market remains rather small and fragmented. The Communication noted the importance of implementing those elements of the FSAP that are relevant to risk capital and pointed to actions already taken e.g. in respect of prudential supervision of supplementary pension funds, harmonised accounting standards etc. A number of priority areas for action at the national level were also highlighted, i.e. further relaxation of regulatory constraints on institutional investment in equity markets, continued easing of the administrative burdens on business have been lightened, removing major disincentive effects of bankruptcy and insolvency procedures and accelerating relevant tax reforms. While progress in implementing the RCAP is satisfactory, intensified efforts will be required if the deadline of 2003 as set by the Lisbon European Council is to be met.
Considerable progress has been made towards concluding the tax package in line with the Helsinki European Council conclusions. The first step was agreement at the European Council at Santa Maria da Feira in June 2000 on the way forward on the taxation of income from savings. Following this, a comprehensive agreement was reached in the Ecofin Council meeting on 26-27 November 2000 on all aspects of the tax package, with a view to seeing its final adoption in the Council by the end of 2002.
A report by Commission and Council on the contribution of public finances to growth and employment was presented to the Stockholm European Council in March 2001. The joint report addresses issues such as sustaining sound public finances, making tax and benefit systems more employment friendly and redirecting public expenditure towards physical and human capital accumulation.
(1) ‘Proposal for a directive of the Parliament and the Council on the activities of institutions for occupational retirement provisions’, COM(2000) 507 final. (2) ‘Proposal for a regulation of the Parliament and the Council on the application of international accounting standards’, COM(2001) 80 final. (3) The Economic and Financial Committee Sub-Group on Community Government Bonds and Bills. (4) ‘Proposal for a Directive from the Council and the European Parliament on financial collateral arrangements’, COM(2001) 168 final. (5) ‘Progress report on the Risk Capital Action Plan’, COM(2000) 658 final.
(2001/C 340 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0631/01 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Council
(8 March 2001)
Subject: Revision of the rules on the expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament
The European Parliament has proposed revising the rules on Members’ expenses and allowances in such a way as to indicate clearly and openly the amount of remuneration payable to Members and to refund travelling expenses in accordance with actual costs. C 340 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Will the Council approve the revision of these rules? What is the intended timetable for the Council’s decision? What practical obstacles are there to a Council decision on the matter?
Reply
(13 July 2001)
In the framework of the draft Statute for Members of the European Parliament, the Council is currently giving careful consideration to the rules on Members’ expenses and allowances proposed by the European Parliament. As the Honourable Member is undoubtedly aware, the draft Statute is the subject of regular contacts between representatives of the Parliament and of the Council. These contacts are progressing favourably, but it is too early to predict when a conclusion will be reached.
(2001/C 340 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0633/01 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission
(6 March 2001)
Subject: Deregulation of electricity
The recent electricity crisis in the State of California has highlighted the problems caused by the deregulation of electricity in this State. There are many reasons for this crisis, such as overcharging for wholesale prices, the disastrous financial situation of the distribution companies and the failure of the State authorities to intervene in time. This crisis has also had a variety of consequences which are equally serious: the risk of a sudden increase in electricity prices, inflationary pressure, a fall in the shares of companies involved in electricity, the risk of a reduction in the growth rate of the State, etc.
Given that the EU has been moving towards a similar deregulation of electricity for years, will the Commission say:
1. What studies has it carried out with a view to ensuring a sufficient quantity of electricity without running the risk of excessive increases in electricity prices?
2. Has it examined safeguards to ensure that the electricity market does not operate solely through the spot market, but also through long-term contracts?
3. Has it established rules governing the intervention of Member States in the event of electricity shortages, so that intervention takes place at prices which cover the costs of the production companies without passing costs on to consumers?
4. Has it provided for specific phases of the deregulation of the market in electricity and periods of time for reviewing deregulation so as to correct any distortions which might result in disruptions of energy supplies and, consequently, cost increases?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(10 May 2001)
1. Security of supply is a key objective of European energy policy, as highlighted in the Commission’s recent Green Paper ‘Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply’ (1).
On the basis of an analysis of the events in California, the Commission has reached the conclusion shared by nearly all analysts that the problems in California result from the specific structure of the market and the regulatory framework in California. This structure is mainly characterized by insufficient generation capacity, barriers to new entrants and fluctuating, high prices, facilitated by the existence of an obligatory pool and the exclusion of the possibility of long-term contracts. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/55
These elements do not exist in the Community. In particular, in the Community sufficient reserve capacity is available, which can be estimated to amount to around 30 % of peak electricity demand (including reserve capacity necessary to maintain the security of the system and over-capacity).
2. Unlike in California, in the Community medium- and long-term supply contracts between suppliers and consumers are not prohibited but form the basic commercial arrangement in the electricity market. Used in parallel to short-term transactions in the spot market, these contracts provide the necessary stability in terms of price developments.
3. The growing integration of the European electricity market will increase security of supply through the opening up of markets and the extension of interconnection capacities, allowing more cross-border trade, in particular in the event of electricity shortages in a Member State.
In addition, Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (2) contains provisions, which allow Member States to take specific measures to react to acute shortages and prevent future problems regarding primary energy sources for generation. In the event of a sudden crisis in the energy market, Article 23 of this Directive provides the possibility for Member States to take temporarily safeguard measures. Such measures may include intervention in the market in order to ensure reasonable prices for end-consumers and cost- recovery by producers, provided such measures are proportionate with the objectives pursued and non- discriminatory in effect. Furthermore, if a Member State determines that installed capacity on the basis of a given primary source is excessively high, or is increasing so rapidly as to constitute a threat to overall security of electricity supply, it may, pursuant to Article 5 (1) (f), ‘specify the nature of the primary sources of energy’ for all new capacity.
4. In its proposal for a revision of the electricity directive (3), the Commission proposes a gradual approach towards full market opening. By 2003 all non-domestic customers shall be free to choose their supplier and by 2005 all consumers shall have this right.
In order to ensure appropriate vigilance with regard to security of supply while market opening is progressing, new measures aimed to ensure the availability of sufficient generation capacity are suggested. Under these new measures Member States would be obliged to continuously monitor the balance between demand and supply and to publish annually a report outlining their findings, indicating any measures envisaged to ensure supply security. The Commission, on the basis of the national reports and its own monitoring work, would publish a report covering the Community as a whole. When necessary, Member States would launch tenders for the construction of new electricity generating capacity.
As regards security of supply in terms of primary energy sources for generation, the safeguard provisions of the electricity directive described above in the reply to question 3 remain applicable.
(1) COM(2000) 769 final. (2) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997. (3) COM(2001) 125.
(2001/C 340 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0635/01 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council
(8 March 2001)
Subject: Aid for Armenia
According to figures concerning American aid for Armenia published in the Washington Post, per capita aid to Armenia over the last year amounted to USD 42, which is one of the highest levels of American aid to third countries. This aid takes a wide variety of forms, notably housing repairs, a contribution towards antiseismic protection for buildings, the renovation of schools, the construction of water supply networks, etc. C 340 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Given that the Transcaucasian countries are priority countries for the European Union, will the Council say: 1. Does Armenia receive aid under the EU’s external aid programme? 2. What levels of aid will it be proposing for Armenia? 3. What aid sectors does it intend to cover?
Reply (13 July 2001)
Armenia receives considerable assistance from a number of international donor organisations. The United States is the largest donor with a USAID assistance budget in 1999 of USD 90 Million with a main focus of employment creation. TACIS (the EU programme) is among the largest providers of technical assistance in addition to EU Member States and UN agencies. Armenia has also received considerable international support in various forms from the Armenian Diaspora.
From 1996 to 2000, the Community aid programme amounted to € 129 million (€ 83 million of which disbursed).
The current TACIS Action programme concentrates on the following priority areas: Support for institutional, legal and administrative reform. In this area the following projects have been identified: To continue support to the Armenia-EU Policy, Legal and Advice Centre (AEPLAC) to ensure smooth implementation of Armenia’s international obligations. To support the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia in view of strengthening its capacity to manage effective legislative process. Support to the Private Sector and Assistance for Economic Development. In this area, a project will establish the principles of a Credit Guarantee Fund and will assist the small enterprises in the identification and the purchasing of needed equipment. Development of Infrastructure Networks. In this area, the activity will concentrate in the energy sector. In view of developing local alternative sources of energy to be able to close down the Medzamor Nuclear Power plant, a project will strengthen the hydropower sector, through the rehabilitation of selected hydropower plants and feasibility studies for a new hydropower plant.
In addition, Armenia will benefit from participation in the Small Project Programmes, (Tempus Policy and Legal advice Statistics Institution Building Partnership Programme).
Other Community funded actions of interest to Armenia are financed separately through the Inter-State Programmes (such as Traceca and Inogate).
Finally, the EU provided in 1998 an exceptional financial assistance to Armenia which amounted MECU 28 in the form of a single tranch loan facility and up to MECU 30 in the form of a grant to be disbursed in successive annual tranches from 1998 to 2002.
(2001/C 340 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0636/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council (8 March 2001)
Subject: EU funding to Yasser Arafat
1. Could the Council please confirm whether any EU funding has been passed directly to Yasser Arafat in cash? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/57
If so, could the Council confirm:
what sums have been so paid;
how much has been paid;
what dates such payments were made;
whether it is planned to continue to make payments in this way;
from what budget line these payments came;
what the specified purposes of the budget line in question were;
what precautions the Council is taking to ensure that the funds are used for the specified purposes;
whether payments in cash breach any rules, laws, regulations or principles of good management?
2. Specifically, could the Council confirm whether a decision has been taken to pay Mr Arafat between € 20 and € 30 million per month for as long as the emergency in the Middle East lasts?
Reply
(13 July 2001)
The Honorable Member’s questions have been addressed also to the Commission, which is responsible for the management of EU support for the Palestinian Authority, regarding the disbursement of funds.
The Council at its session on 26 February 2001 stressed the need for the EU to play an important role in a concerted international effort to avoid economic and institutional collapse in the Palestinian territories. It emphasised that the necessary conditions for a functioning Palestinian economy must be assured.
To that end the Council decided that the EU should urge the Palestinian Authority to draw up, in close co- ordination with the IMF, a revised restrictive budget in order to provide the basis for international support and request the Authority to take effective measures against corruption and towards more democratic transparency.
The EU would further work with urgency for an international donor meeting and encourage other donors to pledge funding in support of the Palestinian budget. It would make full use of the funds available under the existing cash facility in favour of the Palestinian Authority in a concerted effort with the international community in the framework of a long-term approach
The approach adopted by the Council has been pursued by Presidency and Commission in subsequent contacts with the parties, notably during the visit of the President of the Council and the Commissioner for Foreign Relations to the region on 12/13 March.
(2001/C 340 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0642/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(8 March 2001)
Subject: The European Parliament and the proposed EU Constitution
In connection with the reform of the Treaties which was decided upon in Nice and which is scheduled for 2004, the European Parliament is, according to the Commission, the appropriate body to draw up democratically and submit the necessary texts, which may be constitutional in nature. Is the Council therefore going to take decisions acknowledging Parliament’s central role in this matter? C 340 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Reply
(13 July 2001)
As the Honourable MEP is probably aware, the IGC at level of Heads of State and government adopted at Nice a declaration on the future of the Union. This declaration calls for a vast public debate under the auspices of the Swedish and Belgian presidencies, in cooperation with the Commission and involving the European Parliament. This debate was formally launched on 7 March 2001 by the Prime Ministers of Sweden, and Belgium and the Presidents of the European Parliament and the European Commission.
As far as the next steps are concerned, the declaration on the future of the Union adopted at Nice states that, following a report to be drawn up for the European Council in Göteborg in June 2001, the European Council, in its meeting in Laeken/Brussels in December 2001, will agree on a declaration containing appropriate initiatives for the continuation of the process. In these circumstances, the Honourable MEP can easily understand why the Council cannot add anything new at this time on the specific content of the procedure as such procedure will have to be defined. In any event, the final step of this process will be an IGC in application of Article 48 of the TEU.
(2001/C 340 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0648/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission
(6 March 2001)
Subject: Mad-cow crisis and the countries applying for EU membership
The mad-cow crisis within the European Union has created such alarm amongst the general public that the Commission has drawn up a plan to deal with the problems arising in the beefcattle and animalfeed sector by means of reforms to certain Council regulations.
In view of the fact that some of the applicant countries are due to join the European Union in the near future, has the Commission devised any strategic plan to ensure that mad-cow disease does not spread to them?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 2001)
The candidate countries are obliged to transpose and implement the Community legislation relating to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) before accession. The Commission wishes to see this legislation implemented as quickly as possible. To this end, it plans to hold bilateral technical meetings with applicant countries to identify any difficulties concerning the implementation of the acquis as regards BSE.
The Community has encouraged the applicant countries to take over the new agricultural acquis, which includes the protective measures to be implemented by the applicant countries to prevent the spreading of BSE. These include the ban of meat and bone meal for all food producing animals, appropriate treatment of high-risk animal waste, removal of specified risk material and epidemiological surveillance.
The recent opinions of the Scientific Steering Committee on the geographical BSE risk in Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia have shown that for these countries there is a risk that BSE is present in their domestic cattle herds. This reinforces the need for early transposition and implementation of the BSE acquis. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/59
(2001/C 340 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0651/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council (8 March 2001)
Subject: Prosecution of citizens from the Veneto region for unlawful defence of a criminal act who showed solidarity with the group which occupied the San Marco bell tower in 1997
A group of citizens from the Veneto region who, in the Cartura area in 1997, peacefully demonstrated their solidarity with a group called the ‘Serenissimi’ which occupied the San Marco bell tower in Venice as a protest, will be put on trial in the next few days in the Padua courts for the unlawful defence of a criminal act.
According to the state prosecutor, the accused are responsible for displaying placards claiming that the so- called ‘Serenissimi’ were ‘heroes’ and ‘patriots’, and as a result they risk being found guilty of a crime which could result in them being sent to prison.
This criminal prosecution is, in reality, a trial of the peacefully voiced ideas of citizens of a Member State of the European Union and constitutes a breach of the right to free speech enjoyed by all individuals.
Does the Council not consider that the action taken by the Italian judicial authorities is in breach of one of the most basic of human rights and the right to free speech, as enshrined in the Treaty, international instruments governing human rights and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights?
Reply
(13 July 2001)
The Council would like to inform the Honourable Member of the European Parliament that the maintenance of law and order as well as the safeguarding of internal security is a responsibility incumbent upon the Member States which is not affected by Title VI of the Treaty on European Union.
(2001/C 340 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0652/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(6 March 2001)
Subject: Common policy with regard to credit and loans granted at exorbitant rates
The Commission is undoubtedly aware of the dispute in Italy between the banks and consumer protection associations, sparked off by a number of judgments delivered by the courts allowing consumers to apply to their banks for the reimbursement of monies, on the grounds that banks have been guilty of charging compound interest (a perverse mechanism enabling rising interest rates to be charged on current account overdrafts) and offering loans at fixed rates only then often to apply interest rates above those considered to be usurious and therefore illegal under a law of 1996.
The attempts at mediation made by the government have not yet been sufficient to reassure citizens who are starting to wonder whether the Italian banking system is means of effecting legalised theft and whether it really is part of the European monetary zone.
Can the Commission say: 1. Whether it considers the two systems referred to above, as operated by the Italian banks, to be compatible with membership of the Euro zone; 2. Whether the European Central Bank has competence in this area; 3. Whether it considers that the situation described above, involving disproportionate interest rate rises, constitutes a barrier to competition for undertakings that are forced to take out loans to fund investment aimed at ensuring growth; C 340 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
4. What institution should take action in order to prevent Italian firms, who are being charged these rates, from being disadvantaged compared with their European competitors;
5. What steps it intends to take in order to ensure that such systems cannot be operated in Italy or the other Member States?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(23 April 2001)
The Commission already stated in its answers to Parliamentary Questions P-4157/00 (1) and P-0118/01 (2) by Mr Nobilia that the definition of usury rates in Italy in relation to the interest rates applied by banks is the subject of a complaint by Associazione Bancaria Italiana (ABI), Associazione Italiana Banche Estere (AIBE) and the European Banking Federation (EBF). The Commission gave the Italian Government until 20 February 2001 to present its observations, but this was extended by one month to take account of the parliamentary process for the conversion of Decree-Law No 394 of 29 December 2000 so that the question could be examined in detail, with due regard for the new provisions of conversion Law No 24 approved on 28 February 2001. Once the Commission has analysed the observations of the Italian Government, it should be in a position to carry out an in-depth assessment of usury-related practices by the Italian banks with reference also to the matters raised by the Honourable Member.
It must, however, be pointed out from the outset that the definition of the crime of usury and of the parameters for determining the interest rates charged are matters of criminal law and are the responsibility of the individual Member States. The Community institutions act in this area, on a case by case basis, only to the extent that national measures are contrary to the principles of Community law.
In general, as regards interest rates charged by banks, the Commission bases its action on the principle of an economic policy which is founded on the internal market and conducted in accordance with the principles of an open and competitive market economy. It is thus up to each credit institution to formulate its own commercial policy on the basis of its assessment of the market and the risks involved, in accordance with the provisions applicable, especially the rules on competition and the principles of transparent transactions.
As regards the problem of compound interest, the Commission has responded to a complaint from an Italian consumers association by launching a survey to determine whether the EC Treaty rules on competition have been infringed.
(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 241. (2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 190.
(2001/C 340 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0657/01 by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(6 March 2001)
Subject: Operational programmes for the Land of Thuringia
When was the operational programme (OP) for 2000-2006 for Thuringia submitted to the Commission for confirmation?
Did the Commission make any additional requests (if so, how many) to complement the information contained in the OP?
When did the Land government last provide complementary information on the OP?
When, in the Commission’s opinion, was the programme ready for confirmation? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/61
Is it true that the Commission has made countless requests for further information in respect of the OPs for the new Länder that have been submitted, and that there have been delays in confirmation?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(30 May 2001)
On 8 November 1999, the Commission received the draft operational programme (OP) for Thuringia from the German federal authorities.
The Community support framework (CSF) for Germany, co-ordinating all Community structural assistance including assistance for the development of human resources in the regions concerned, was adopted by the Commission in June 2000 (1).
After examination of the draft OP, the Commission sent its remarks to Thuringia in August 2000. After bilateral talks in Brussels on 24 October 2000, the final version of the OP was submitted to the Commission on 28 November 2000 and adopted on 15 December 2000.
Following the Commission’s letter of 29 November 2000 addressed to both German federal and regional authorities, the date of 22 November 1999 has been laid down for the eligibility of expenditure.
The introduction of the new programming period 2000-2006, involving adaptation and uniform application of the new Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2), has presented a real challenge to the Member States and the Commission. In comparison with the other regions eligible under Objective 1, the new German Länder have not been especially affected by additional questions, requests for further information or delays.
(1) OJ L 318, 16.12.2000. (2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2001/C 340 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0660/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council
(8 March 2001)
Subject: Lisbon European Council and investment
The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Council and the Commission, together with the Member States where appropriate to ‘improve the environment for private research investment, R & D partnerships and high technology start-ups, by using tax policies, venture capital and EIB support.’ What progress, particularly in terms of concrete examples, has been made since the Lisbon summit in this area?
Reply
(13 July 2001)
As the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council state, the steps to be taken to establish a European Research Area involve efforts to be undertaken by the Commission, the Council and, where appropriate, the Member States themselves. The problems, long identified, relating to lack of investment in R & D, in particular private investment, as well as the need for investment to encourage R & D partnerships and high technology start-ups, have to be tackled in the main at Member State level (e.g. in the area of tax incentives), together with some incitement from the Commission.
The Council itself can only but applaud whatever initiatives are taken to encourage, in particular, private investment in R & D activities. C 340 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
The Council has noted with interest the Commission initiatives to reinforce the networking of R & D actions and the financing of innovation by risk capital. It has also acknowledged the efforts currently being made by the European Investment Bank in ‘the i2i initiative’ to support the creation of the European Research Area, using, inter alia, the European Investment Fund and in particular the analyses undertaken by the Bank and the Commission for potential cooperation to support actions under the Fifth and Sixth research framework programmes.
In this context, the recent Council Decision on a multiannual programme for SMEs (2001-2005) should be noted. This amounts to € 450 million over five years and is directed largely to innovation and RTD take- up.
Moreover, the Council has noted the Commission’s intention, announced in its report to the Stockholm European Council on the progress achieved in setting up ERA, to undertake a comparative study in good practices relating to support for research and innovation by fiscal measures and to establish a specific framework for cooperation with the EIB.
The Council will also examine all relevant measures put forward by the Commission in its recently submitted proposal for the 2002-2006 research framework programme.
The Stockholm European Council has reviewed this strategy and given new orientations.
Several reports of the Council and the Commission submitted to the Stockholm European Council reflect progress in some Member States. In particular there has been progress in the development of venture capital market, taxation encouraging bussiness expenditures on R & D, remedies to the fragmentation of Europe’s R & D efforts and in the creation of a business environment more favourable to innovation and technological progress. Nevertheless much remains to be done in the relation between science and industry. Of particular relevance are the Council Report on the Annual Report on Structural Reforms 2001 and the Commission Report on the implementation of the 2000 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines.
The Stockholm European Council has notably endorsed the objective of a well functionning risk capital market by 2003 trough the implementation of the Risk Capital Action Plan.
(2001/C 340 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0662/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council
(8 March 2001)
Subject: Lisbon European Council and information networks
The 2000 Lisbon European Council invited ‘the Council to strengthen cooperation between Member States by exchanging experiences and best practice on the basis of improved information networks which are the basic tools in this field [social protection].’ What specific steps have been taken in this regard and how is progress being monitored?
Reply
(13 July 2001)
Following on from the Lisbon European Council, the Commission submitted on 19 June 2000 a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme of Community action to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion by improving knowledge, developing the exchange of information and best practices, evaluating experiences, and by promoting dialogue and supporting networking at the European level between relevant bodies and organisations. The Decision has not yet been adopted, the second reading in the European Parliament being currently in progress. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/63
According to the draft action programme, a Committee is to be established to assist the Commission, and it will be regularly informed about progress.
In addition, the activities of the Social Protection Committee have largely the same objective as the action programme, and a close link with this Committee has been foreseen during the implementation of the action programme by the Commission and the Member States.
(2001/C 340 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0663/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(6 March 2001)
Subject: Lisbon European Council and information networks
The 2000 Lisbon European Council invited ‘the Council to strengthen cooperation between Member States by exchanging experiences and best practice on the basis of improved information networks which are the basic tools in this field [social protection].’ What specific steps have been taken in this regard and how is progress being monitored?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(23 May 2001)
The ‘information networks’ referred to in the question relate to the co-operative exchange between Member States on social protection issues which has been ongoing since the mid-1990s. This exchange had become more structured and focused since the Commission’s Communication of 14 July 1999 entitled ‘A Concerted Strategy for Social Protection’ (1). Following this, in December 1999, the Council supported the Commission’s proposal for stronger mechanisms to strengthen this co-operation and the High Level Working Party on Social Protection was established on an interim basis (2). The Social Protection Committee (SPC) was formally created by Council Decision 2000/436/EC (3) of 29 June 2000 to replace the Working Party. When the Treaty modifications agreed at the Nice European Council come into force, the Committee will have a legal base in the EU Treaty (new article 144).
In order to develop appropriate, commonly agreed indicators in the field of social protection, and while recognising that there is considerable diversity in Member States’ approaches in this regard, the Social Protection Committee has recently created an indicators sub-group to work in this field.
The focus of this policy co-operation since March 2000 has been determined by the mandate of the Lisbon European Council which sought to concentrate work on two policy areas, i.e. the fight against poverty and social exclusion and the provision of safe and sustainable pensions. The Nice European Council of December 2000 gave renewed mandates for the continuation of work in both areas.
In relation to pensions, the Lisbon European Council requested a study on the long-term evolution of social protection, giving particular attention to the sustainability of pension systems. There was good co- operation on this and a progress report was submitted to the Nice European Council. On the basis of a questionnaire designed by the SPC, national reports which set out the Member States’ approaches to pension reform were submitted during February 2001. These will form the basis for a study to be presented to the Göteborg European Council in June 2001.
In relation to the fight against poverty and social exclusion, the Lisbon European Council committed Member States to making a ‘decisive impact on the eradication of poverty’. The Nice European Council agreed a set of ‘appropriate objectives’ to form the basis for a major policy focus in this regard. On the basis of these objectives, Member States will submit before 1 June 2001 National Action Plans which set out their policies to fight poverty and social exclusion during the two year period from mid-2001 to mid- C 340 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
2003. At present Member States are in the process of preparing these and a series of national seminars to inaugurate the process that is being held.
(1) COM(1999) 347 final. (2) Council Conclusions of 17 December 1999 on the strengthening of co-operation for modernising and improving social protection (OJ C 8, 12.1.2000). (3) OJ L 172, 12.7.2000.
(2001/C 340 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0664/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council
(8 March 2001)
Subject: Lisbon European Council and the promotion of inclusion
The 2000 Lisbon European Council invited ‘the Council and the Commission to mainstream the promotion of inclusion in Member States’ employment, education and training, health and housing policies.’ What specific steps have been taken in this regard and what action has been taken at Community level by action under the Structural Funds?
Reply
(13 July 2001)
With the assistance of the Social Protection Committee, the Council already:
adopted in October 2000 objectives for combating poverty and social exclusion which were subsequently endorsed by the Nice European Council; on the basis of those objectives, the Member States were invited to submit by June 2001 national action plans covering a two-year period;
adopted in October 2000 conclusions on structural indicators for employment and social cohesion, and invited the Social Protection Committee and the Employment Committee to press ahead in the future in a concerted manner with their work on this subject;
adopted in November 2000 a progress report on the future evolution of social protection (pensions), which was subsequently submitted to the Nice European Council, and in March 2001 a preliminary study on the long-term viability of pensions, which was subsequently submitted to the Stockholm European Council; a more comprehensive report on the sustainability of pensions will be presented to the Gothenburg European Council in June 2001.
During 2001, work will be initiated on the remaining priority areas of modernising and improving social protection which were identified in the Council conclusions of 17 December 1999, namely:
to make work pay and to provide secure income, and
to ensure high-quality and sustainable health care.
As regards the Structural Funds, the Regulation on the Economic and Social Fund provides for supporting and complementing the activities of Member States directed towards developing the labour market and human resources in the fields mentioned in Article 2(1)(a) to (e). These concrete measures are to be defined by each Member State in accordance with its priorities and in cooperation with the Commission, within their respective Community Support Framework and Operational Programmes and/or Single Programming Documents.
In general terms, the European Council, at its Lisbon meeting on 23 and 24 March 2000, referred to the position it had consistently taken, emphasising that people are Europe’s main asset and should be the focal point of the Union’s policies. On the same occasion it also stated that investing in people and developing an active and dynamic welfare state would be crucial both to Europe’s place in the knowledge economy and for ensuring that the emergence of this new economy did not compound the existing social problems 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/65
of unemployment, social exclusion and poverty. In the same spirit, at its Stockholm meeting on 23 and 24 March 2001 the Council also stressed that paid employment for men and women offered the best safeguard against poverty and social exclusion.
(2001/C 340 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0666/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council
(8 March 2001)
Subject: Lisbon European Council and agreed indicators
The 2000 Lisbon European Council invited ‘the Council and the Commission to promote a better understanding of social exclusion through continued dialogue and exchanges of information and best practice, on the basis of commonly agreed indicators.’ Have these indicators been established, and if so what are they?
Reply
(16 July 2001)
In response to the mandate given by the Lisbon European Council, the Council has invited the Social Protection Committee to select and develop indicators in support of the goal of combating social exclusion. Given the essentially technical nature of this task, the Social Protection Committee has itself established a subgroup with the specific aim of addressing this question.
It is envisaged that the subgroup will report to the Social Protection Committee in June and November of this year, with a view to incorporating proposals into the Committee’s reports to be submitted to the Council in advance of the Laeken European Council in December 2001.
(2001/C 340 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0668/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council
(8 March 2001)
Subject: Lisbon European Council and pensions sustainability
The 2000 Lisbon European Council invited ‘the Council to mandate the High Level Working Party on Social Protection … to support … [social policy] cooperation and, as its first priority, to prepare, on the basis of a Commission communication, a study on the future evolution of social protection from a long- term point of view, giving particular attention to the sustainability of pensions systems in different time frameworks up to 2020 and beyond, where necessary.’ Was such a progress report available by December 2000 and what timetable has been established for future work by the High Level Working Party?
Reply
(13 July 2001)
The High-Level Working Party on Social Protection presented a progress report on the future evolution of social protection (pensions) to the Council (Employment and Social Policy) in November 2000, which submitted it to the Nice European Council in December 2000.
This Working Party has subsequently been replaced by the Social Protection Committee, which continues to deal with the sustainability of pensions as a main topic on its agenda. C 340 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
A second progress report, a preliminary study on the long-term viability of pensions, based on contributions from the Member States, was presented to the Council (Employment and Social Policy) on 6 March 2001 and submitted to the Stockholm European Council on 23/24 March 2001.
For the Gothenburg European Council in June, the Social Protection Committee is currently preparing a more comprehensive report on the sustainability of pensions. A further report to the Council, based on a Communication from the Commission, is envisaged for September 2001.
(2001/C 340 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0669/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(6 March 2001)
Subject: Lisbon European Council and pensions sustainability
The 2000 Lisbon European Council invited ‘the Council to mandate the High Level Working Party on Social Protection … to support … [social policy] cooperation and, as its first priority, to prepare, on the basis of a Commission communication, a study on the future evolution of social protection from a long- term point of view, giving particular attention to the sustainability of pensions systems in different time frameworks up to 2020 and beyond, where necessary.’ Was such a progress report available by December 2000 and what timetable has been established for future work by the High Level Working Party?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(2 May 2001)
A progress report from the High-Level Working Party on Social Protection on the study on sustainable pensions was indeed adopted by the Employment and Social Affairs Council on 27/28 November 2000 and transmitted to the Nice European Council.
Subsequently the High-Level Working Party (now Social Protection Committee) prepared a questionnaire to the Member States as a basis for national reports. These national reports are now being analysed and will serve as a basis for the final study to be presented to the Göteborg European Council in June.
The Commission intends to pursue and strengthen this co-operation on sustainable pensions with a view of proposing a communication to the Parliament and the Council.
(2001/C 340 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0680/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(14 March 2001)
Subject: Use of chemical weapons in Turkey and Iraq and the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy
On Friday, 16 February American and British aircraft attacked the region of the capital of Iraq. Two people were killed and twenty injured. According to Iraqi TV two homes were destroyed in Hafriya, a village 40 km south of Baghdad. Damage was more limited in al-Rashdiya, 20 km north of Baghdad.
The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Robin Cook, said that the bombing was necessary to maintain the no-fly zones required to protect the Kurdish people in the north and the Shiites in the south. ‘When Saddam was allowed to fly over the northern zone he used chemical weapons on the Kurds’, Cook said. ‘He would do it again if he had the opportunity’. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/67
Cook’s position on the use of chemicals weapons in Iraq is in stark contrast to the attitude of the EU Member States on the use of chemical weapons in Turkey. For example, the Council has still not expressed an opinion on the Turkish army’s use of chemical weapons with German warheads on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999. Nevertheless there is a need to develop a clear view of the Kurdish question in Iraq and Turkey in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Will the Council take whatever action is necessary to put an end to the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in Turkey, to reflect Cook’s line on the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in Iraq? If not, why does the Council refuse to develop a clear view of the use of chemical weapons against, on the one hand, the Kurds in Iraq (as witness Cook’s position) and, on the other hand, the Kurds in Turkey?
Reply (16 July 2001)
Regarding the issue of chemical weapons in Turkey, the Honourable Member is kindly invited to refer to the reply to the Written Question No E-0670/01 on ‘German chemical weapons in Turkey’. The use of chemical weapons against the Kurds has not been raised within the Council or Council bodies. The Council has not therefore expressed its views on the issue.
(2001/C 340 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0682/01 by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission (8 March 2001)
Subject: Inclusion of military areas in the sites notified by the Member States under the EU habitats and bird protection Directive
1. Which Member States have included areas in military use in the sites notified under the EU habitats and bird protection Directive for the purposes of a European Natura 2000 network?
2. What proportion do these military areas represent in relation to the total area which the relevant Member State has notified to the Commission in accordance with the habitats and bird protection Directive?
3. In the event of any Member State not having included military areas in its notification of sites, please indicate: (a) Why this has not been done? (b) What is the Commission’s position on this?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (10 May 2001)
The possible military use of sites notified to the Commission under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (1) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) for the Natura 2000 network is amongst the voluntary data included by the Member States at the time of notification. The type of activity, ‘military exercise,’ which may be linked to the Honourable Member’s Question, may therefore be given voluntarily. Out of the 14 Member States that have sent computerised data to the Commission under the habitats Directive (all except for Germany), ten, (Belgium, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden) have indicated this type of activity. As regards the sites notified under the bird protection Directive, eight Member States, (Belgium, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden) have indicated this type of activity.
The Commission is not in a position to provide the information requested, given the voluntary nature of the indication of military use, therefore it is impossible to calculate the total area. C 340 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
The Member States are required to notify areas that meet the scientific criteria of the habitat and bird protection Directives for Natura 2000. This obligation is the responsibility of the Member States’ authorities and the Commission is not in a position to indicate if and why the areas in military use were excluded. The Commission is of the opinion that these areas must be notified for Natura 2000 where their ecological characteristics so require.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2001/C 340 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0689/01 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission (8 March 2001)
Subject: The situation in Angola
A report by the NGO ‘Médecins sans frontières’ published in November 2000 (Angola: unassumed responsibilities a people on the verge of the abyss) sets out the testimonies of displaced Angolan civilians and details the deterioration in the health of the displaced (76 % of the population have no access to health care) and the danger and difficulties faced in obtaining humanitarian aid from the outside, thanks to a government-imposed ban.
The mortality rate for children under five is 292/1000, and life expectancy at birth has fallen from 47 in 1970 to 42 today.
The UN, meanwhile, appears to have abandoned the principle of fair and equal humanitarian access to the parties in conflict.
If the above figures are confirmed, what measures does the Commission intend to adopt to alleviate this situation?
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (16 May 2001)
The Commission is aware of the seriousness of the humanitarian situation in Angola and has been actively providing support to alleviate the suffering of the populations. In spite of an improvement during late 1999 and 2000, when the government obtained control of a significant part of the territory, security and access remain affected and there have been no significant breakthrough in reversing the humanitarian crisis.
EC support is currently targeting, through the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and EuropeAid, both food and non-food aid to displaced populations with a particular emphasis in the heavily war affected Central and Eastern Provinces. Furthermore, the Commission intends to continue to provide support in all areas of the country, as long as security conditions allow it, and to accompany humanitarian assistance with support for transition to rehabilitation and development.
The health situation of the displaced populations is particularly looked at by the Commission through various ongoing actions. The Commission is one of the main partners in the health sector in Angola and over 60 % of the ECHO funds approved for this country in 2000 were spent to respond to the emergency health needs of the Angolan population. The Commission recalls that the Union’s political objectives with regard to Angola are set out in the Council Common Position of 19 June 2000 (1) (2000/391/CFSP). This position addresses the issue raised by the Honourable Member by calling for securing safe and unrestricted access to internally displaced persons by relief agencies in accordance with internationally accepted humanitarian principles. The Commission, in co-ordination with the Member States, has been urging the Government to respond to the more immediate concerns; in particular, the re-establishment of local administrations and the re-opening of road access appear to be critical to the improvement of the livelihoods of population.
(1) OJ L 146, 21.6.2000. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/69
(2001/C 340 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0690/01 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (8 March 2001)
Subject: Regional autonomy in Romania
The supreme court of Romania has ruled that ‘Pro-Transilvania’ is an illegal organisation. The Romanian government’s case is that organisations seeking autonomy are a threat to the integrity of the state.
It is clearly not within the sphere of competence of the Commission to contest this judicial interpretation of the Romanian constitution.
The fact is, however, that Romania as a member of the Council of Europe signed the European Charter of Regional Autonomy in 1994 and ratified it in 1998 (with the law entering into force on 1 May 1998).
What is the Commission’s interpretation of the fact that an international charter of regional autonomy, signed by a particular country, constitutes a legal argument in that country for persecution on the grounds that it is a threat to national integrity?
In the context of Romania’s accession to the Union, will the Commission demand an explanation of this obvious legal contradiction from Romania?
If not, will the Commission give other Member States a free hand to limit freedoms laid down in their constitutions (whether or not on grounds of a threat to national and territorial integrity)?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (3 May 2001)
The Commission notes that the Charter to which the Honourable Member refers concerns ‘local self- government’ and not ‘regional self-government’. As stated in the answer to her Written Question E-3957/ 00 (1), the Commission’s understanding is that it is the call for ‘regional autonomy’ that formed the basis of the Romanian Court of Appeal’s decision that Pro-Transylvania’s articles of establishment are uncon- stitutional. The principle of local autonomy is enshrined in the Romanian Constitution (Article 119).
Article 4 of the Council of Europe Charter on Local Self-Government sets out the scope of local self- government (as defined by the Charter) and in its first paragraph notes that ‘the basic powers and responsibilities of local authorities shall be prescribed by the Constitution or by Statute.’ While the Council of Europe remains the appropriate institution to interpret the provisions of this charter, the Commission’s understanding is that this provision confirms that it is appropriate for the Romanian Constitution to determine the competences of local government.
The Commission also notes that this Charter is not covered by the acquis communautaire and that it has not been ratified by all Member States. The Charter has, therefore, no relation to the accession negotiations.
(1) See page 7.
(2001/C 340 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0691/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council (14 March 2001)
Subject: Situation in the Congo
The new President of the Congo, Joseph Kabila (son of the assassinated President), recently paid a visit to UN headquarters in New York to assure his officials of his concern to pursue peace and cooperation. However, following his first meeting with the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, he accused both Rwanda and Uganda of conducting marauding incursions into his country. C 340 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
The situation is urgent since the international press reports that racial clashes have already begun on a limited scale. If the situation is not brought under control as soon as possible, the spread of these clashes and the killing of civilians which follows will cause incalculable harm.
Only an embargo on the sale of arms can pressure both sides into showing greater maturity and self- restraint.
What steps will the Council take to secure compliance with the terms of the Treaty of Lusaka and what pressure can it exert on the warring factions to hold talks with a view to finding a settlement?
(2001/C 340 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0772/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Council
(15 March 2001)
Subject: Peace in the Great Lakes region
The war which is afflicting the Great Lakes region, affecting seven countries, has claimed thousands of victims, with sanguinary clashes between different ethnic groups, tribes and other communities. The region has been torn apart by these conflicts for years now. However, recent political developments in the Democratic Republic of Congo since the assassination of Laurent Kabila suggest that the dictator’s death has led to a considerable relaxation of tension in that country.
In the light of these freshly aroused expectations in the RDC following the change of regime, does the Council consider that the prospects for peace in the region have now improved? Will the EU provide resources to enable the disarmament plan to succeed and facilitate the reintegration of the rebels? How will the plan be implemented? Does the Council believe it would be desirable to offer demobilisation incentives as a core element of the peace process? When does the EU intend to convene a Conference for the countries of Central Africa with a view to creating the conditions for closer regional cooperation and constructing new models for cooperation between the developed world and the countries of the region?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0691/01 and E-0772/01
(13 July 2001)
The Council has noted with satisfaction the solemn commitments made by the parties in Lusaka on 15 February and in New York on 21 and 22 February, to relaunch the implementation of the Lusaka cease- fire agreement, which constitutes the consensual basis for peace in the DRC and the region.
The Council has welcomed the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1341 approving the updated concept of operations for MONUC and it has underlined the crucial importance of a rapid deployment of the MONUC to verify and supervise the disengagement of troops, in the perspective of a complete, definitive and unconditional withdrawal of foreign troops from the DRC with the ultimate objective of restoring sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DRC.
The Council has confirmed the European Union’s continued political and material support to the MONUC and to its contributors.
The Council has underlined the importance of disarming armed groups that operate in and from the territory of the DRC. It has welcomed the provisions in UN Security Council Resolution 1341, urging the parties to the conflict to co-operate with the MONUC in the elaboration of a plan for disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of all armed forces referred to in Annex A, Chapter 9.1 of the Lusaka Agreement. The European Union has expressed its willingness to work with the international community, in particular the United Nations specialised agencies, on the modalities of such a programme and it has mandated the European Union’s Special Representative to engage in a reflection on how to pursue this question. Until these reflections have been presented to and discussed by the Council, it is too early to discuss the implementation and financing of such a programme. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/71
The Council has reiterated the importance it attaches to an early start to the national dialogue, as foreseen in the Lusaka Agreement and recalled the support that the European Union and its Member States give to the process of national dialogue as well as its readiness to continue to support its institutional framework.
The Council has expressed its deep concern over the continuing serious human rights violations in the DRC and reminded the governments concerned of their responsibility and accountability for upholding the respect for human rights by their own armed forces as well as by the armed forces under their de facto control.
In the Council Joint Action appointing the European Union’s Special Representative, Mr Ajello, reference is indeed made to an international conference on peace, stability, democracy and development in the African Great Lakes Region to be held at an appropriate time, but the Council has not pronounced itself on this question yet.
The Commission has recently indicated its wish to gradually resume development co-operation through a progressive resumption of aid, cut off since 1992, and by freeing credits from the 7th and 8th European Development Fund (EDF) namely € 120 million. These funds should act to accompany the peace process and will be granted in relation to the progress accomplished by the Congolese authorities in the peace process and in the transition towards democracy.
(2001/C 340 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0696/01 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(14 March 2001)
Subject: Suckler cow premiums
Would the Council agree that the recent ‘7 point plan’ for the UK is unfavourable to beef production in the UK, and especially for Wales? Given the proposal to reduce the number of productive suckler cows eligible for the suckler cow premium, the UK will be affected disproportionately with 18 % of the suckler cows population in the UK compared with only 11 % of total EU beef production.
Does the Council accept that it is unfair that the UK has to introduce these changes when we already have in place an over thirty month scheme that has removed animals from the market for the last five years?
Does the Council also accept that reducing the number of suckler cows in the market will have a negative effect on consumers as it will reduce the higher quality beef being produced for the European consumer?
Is it not also illogical to further concentrate beef production from dairy herds where a much higher incidence of BSE has occurred.
Finally, will the Council look again at the calf slaughter premium scheme? This scheme can be carried out at lower cost than the other measures being proposed by the Commission such as the change to the suckler cow scheme. It will remove the lower quality animals from the market and will also have a more rapid impact in the re-balancing of the market.
Reply
(13 July 2001)
The Council has received a proposal concerning amendments to the CMO for beef and veal, with the aim of adapting production to the reduction in demand due to a lack of consumer confidence following the BSE crisis. C 340 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
This proposal, on which the European Parliament is yet to deliver its opinion, is currently under examination at the Council. It would therefore be premature for the Council to state its position on the matters raised by the Honourable Member.
The Council will in any case take account of the opinion of the European Parliament before acting on the proposal.
(2001/C 340 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0699/01 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(14 March 2001)
Subject: UK involvement in the bombing of Baghdad
Will the Council be supporting UK involvement in the bombing of Baghdad?
Would the Council not agree that the citizens of Iraq have already suffered enough following the economic embargo, and that further air attacks by the USA and Britain will only add to their suffering, and that in the name of democracy and human rights these attacks should be condemned?
Reply
(13 July 2001)
The Council has no common position on the issue of the ‘no-fly zones’ in Iraq, including the bombings referred to in the question.
The Council considers it important to prevent the Iraqi Government from again acquiring weapons of mass destruction and recalls its full support for the relevant UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq, including resolution 1284/99. The Council agrees, however, that there is a need to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people resulting from the implementation of these sanctions. The ‘oil-for-food’ program is of crucial importance in this context and the Council hopes that the implementation of the program could be streamlined in accordance with the recommendations by the UN Secretary-General. Within the framework of the UNSC resolutions, the Council is examining possibilities for further EU action in the humanitarian and cultural fields.
The Council also notes that the full cooperation of the Iraqi Government with the UN would lead to a suspension and eventual lifting of sanctions in accordance with the provisions of UNSC resolution 1284. The Council hopes that the recent contacts between the UN Secretary-General and representatives of the Iraqi Government will promote such cooperation in the future.
The Council has also noted with interest the discussions in the UN Security Council about improving the effectiveness of the sanctions, including better targeting, and thereby avoiding unnecessary human suffering.
(2001/C 340 E/085) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0702/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council
(14 March 2001)
Subject: The Serbian government’s commitment to human rights and accountability
In view of the appointment of Colonel Sreten Lukic as Chief of Public Security and Deputy Interior Minister, is the Council aware that this raises concerns regarding the Serbian government’s commitment to human rights and accountability? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/73
What action does the Council intend to take to ensure that Serbia honours its obligations in this regard?
Reply (16 July 2001)
The Council stresses continuously to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorities that full respect for human rights and democracy is a necessary precondition for a rapprochement of this country to the mainstream of Europe.
On their side, the Belgrade authorities and President Kostunica personally at the Zagreb Summit, last November have on numerous occasions restated their commitment to respect fully these fundamental principles and have taken positive steps to this end.
Much remains to be done including on full cooperation with ICTY and the release of all wrongly imprisoned ethnic Albanian political prisoners but in the Council’s view the democratic government of the FRY has made good progress in overcoming the unhappy situation in the human rights field bequeathed to it by the Milosevic regime.
(2001/C 340 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0703/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission (8 March 2001)
Subject: The plight of defendants in Palestine
Defendants in Palestine are regularly subjected to execution following military trials, having been denied access to lawyers and the right to appeal. What action has the EU Commission taken to end this unacceptable procedure?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (2 May 2001)
The Commission is opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances and is committed to campaign for the universal abolition of the death penalty. That stance is rooted in the Commission’s belief in the inherent dignity of all human beings and the inviolability of the human person.
In this context, the Commission has fully supported the Union Presidency Declaration of 15 January 2001 deeply regretting the latest executions that have taken place in West Bank and Gaza in January 2001 and requesting President Arafat to respect its commitment with the Union as regards a moratorium on death penalty. This declaration also appealed to President Arafat to commute the death sentences against Ali al- Hatib and Husa al-Din Musa in Bethlehem. The Palestinian Authority has for the moment suspended those executions.
(2001/C 340 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0704/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council (14 March 2001)
Subject: Human rights abuses in Pakistan
What steps does the Council intend to take to ensure that the human rights abuses which are taking place in Pakistan in the name of political reform are discontinued? Since Pakistan’s transition from constitutional to military rule, the Musharraf government has detained opponents and former officials without charge, C 340 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
removed independent judges from the higher courts, banned public rallies and demonstrations, and rendered political parties all but powerless. The sweeping powers of arrest, investigation and prosecution conferred on the National Accountability Bureau by the National Accountability Ordinance are other causes for concern.
Reply
(16 July 2001)
In the wake of the military coup in autumn 1999, the Council suspended signature of the EC-Pakistan Cooperation Agreement and interrupted the regular political dialogue. Possibilities for direct formal interaction with the regime in Islamabad are therefore limited. However, the Council has on two occasions November 1999 and November 2000 sent a high-level ad hoc mission to Pakistan, which raised the various preoccupations mentioned in the Honourable Member’s question during talks with General Musharraf, Government Ministers, senior officials and other interlocutors, in particular representatives of countries which share the same beliefs and of the international financial institutions present in Islamabad. The EU has put special emphasis on the need to respect human rights, on freedom of expression and on an independent judiciary. The EU has also impressed on its Pakistani interlocutors the need for a speedy and full return to representative democracy. More recently, similar concerns were raised at the Pakistan Development Forum held in Islamabad from 12 to 15 March 2001.
On behalf of the European Union, the Presidency wrote twice to the Pakistani Minister for the Interior to express the EU’s concerns over the continued application of the ban on outdoor political rallies in Pakistan, in April and again in May 2001.
The Council will continue to monitor the situation closely, in particular the announced return to parliamentary democracy by means of elections to be held at local, provincial and national level by October 2002. The Council will also continue to intervene in an appropriate manner where necessary, in particular by making confidential representations. The EU Heads of Mission in Islamabad will raise individual cases in the course of their regular contacts with the authorities.
(2001/C 340 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0705/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(8 March 2001)
Subject: Similarity of the euro logo with that of Thomas Cook and the claim for GBP 25 million
1. Is the Commission aware of the article in the Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad of Saturday, 3 February 2001, entitled ‘Euro gaat Brussel ponden kosten’ [Euro will cost Brussels pounds]?
2. Is the Commission aware of the problem referred to in the article of the similarity between the euro logo and the logo of the British company Thomas Cook which, the company maintains, has been registered since 1993?
3. Was any preliminary research carried out into other registered logos comparable with the euro logo? Did this include the Thomas Cook logo? If so, what was the outcome and what is the Commission’s interpretation of the outcome?
4. What is the Commission’s opinion of Cook’s view, referred to in the article, that the considerable similarity between its own logo and the euro logo will devalue its own logo?
5. The board of Thomas Cook has let it be known that it has been endeavouring since 1998 to reach a solution to this problem with the Commission. Can the Commission confirm this? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/75
6. What is the Commission’s view of the statement by Thomas Cook’s board that the Commission has never given a serious response to the problem raised by Thomas Cook? What was the reason for this?
7. Has the Commission been informed by Thomas Cook of a possible claim for damages of GBP 25 million (according to the article)?
8. Can the Commission confirm that Thomas Cook has set a deadline for a reply and that, in the absence of a reply, it will file its claim for damages at the end of February?
9. Does the Commission agree that given the legal process this could result in a long drawn out court procedures?
10. Does the Commission agree that this could effect the planned date of introduction of the euro?
11. If the problems assume such proportions that the planned introductory date of 1 January 2002 cannot be met, is the Commission prepared, in cooperation with the 12 Member States involved, to draw up an emergency plan for maintaining the existing currency on a provisional basis?
12. Is the Commission prepared to inform Parliament of the issue and of any follow-up?
13. Finally, what is the Commission’s view of Cook’s claim for damages totalling GBP 25 million?
14. Does the Commission agree that steps must be taken to prevent it being manoeuvred into a position where there is no solution but to hand over the damages requested European citizens’ tax to prevent even bigger problems?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(15 June 2001)
The Commission is aware of the actions launched by Thomas Cook on the euro logo.
The whole of the dossier being subject to an action with the Court of the First Instance of the Communities, no written or spoken declaration can be made by the Commission.
Nevertheless, the Commission considers that this action cannot affect the date of the introduction of the euro.
(2001/C 340 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0717/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission
(8 March 2001)
Subject: Stage reached in the approval of the Canaries tax AIEM
The industrial sector in the Canaries has expressed concern at the delay within the Commission regarding approval of the tax on the importation and transfer of goods in the Canaries (AIEM). In the past week, business representatives explained to Community tax experts their concerns regarding the delay in the introduction of the AIEM and in the approval of the regulation governing exemptions from duty on imports of certain industrial and fisheries products. Failure to approve the rules in the course of this year could lead to the cessation of the bulk of industrial activity in the Canaries.
Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in work on the approval of the AIEM, and can it give a date for its entry into force? C 340 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(30 April 2001)
By letter of 25 July 2000, Spain sent the Commission some items of descriptive socio-economic data on the situation in the Canary Islands and certain details concerning a new tax entitled ‘Arbitrio sobre los Importaciones y Entregas de Mercancias en las islas Canarias (AIEM)’ tax on the import and transfer of goods in the Canaries. The tax represents the implementation for tax purposes of Article 299(2) (former Article 227) of the EC Treaty.
Since the notification was incomplete, on 25 October 2000 Spain sent further particulars to the Commission, indicating the rates planned for this future tax. This enabled the Commission to start examining and evaluating this information. The provisions concerning the tax on production and imports (APIM) expired on 31 December 2000 and in order to ensure the necessary transition to the new tax arrangements, the Spanish authorities, in a letter of 31 October 2000 requested an extension to the transitional period laid down in Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1911/91 of 26 June 1991 on the application of the provisions of Community law to the Canary Islands (1). The Commission adopted a proposal to that effect (2), and it is at present before the Council and Parliament.
Simultaneously, the Commission continued its deliberations concerning the AIEM in conjunction with the Spanish authorities, to which it sent remarks and objections concerning the prop osal. The Commission is awaiting the answer to these comments in order to complete its evaluation and prepare a proposal pursuant to Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty.
(1) OJ L 171, 29.6.1991. (2) COM(2001) 76 final.
(2001/C 340 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0719/01 by Frédérique Ries (ELDR) to the Council
(14 March 2001)
Subject: Transnationally abducted children and the case of the Limet/de Brouwer children in Kenya
In 1994, Marie de Brouwer, a Belgian citizen, left Belgium to start a new life in Kenya and separated from her husband and her three children.
The custody of the three children was awarded to the father, Olivier Limet and confirmed by the Brussels Court of Appeal in 1997.
Since 9 August 1998, Mrs de Brouwer, who in the meantime acquired Kenyan citizenship, has refused to return the children to their father and has prevented any contact between the children on the one hand and their father and close relations in Belgium on the other.
The Belgian Courts have issued an international warrant for the arrest of Mrs de Brouwer and an extradition order against her on the grounds of hostage taking. They have also condemned her to a jail sentence.
The Kenyan authorities, through their attorney-general, have issued legal objections to the Belgian Courts’ decision and have placed the children under the protection of the Kenyan Court.
Since the summer of 1998, the three children have not seen their father.
Could this case be raised in meetings with Kenyan officials at all levels and the Kenyan authorities be invited to do their utmost to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion for all parties involved, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that every child has the right to maintain direct contact with both parents if separated from one or both? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/77
Reply
(13 July 2001)
The Council would inform the Honourable Member that the European Community has neither signed nor ratified the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Nor has the European Community concluded bilateral agreements with third States containing provisions relating to child abduction.
The matter is therefore one for examination at the level of the arrangements in force between the Member States and third States.
(2001/C 340 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0732/01 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission
(9 March 2001)
Subject: Technical standards for mobile telephones to eliminate the radiation risk
Revelations about the damaging radiation emitted by mobile telephones have given cause for concern about the widespread damage they may be causing, especially to children’s health.
As the risk from the radiation depends on the distance between the telephone and the user’s head the obvious solution is to design mobile telephones with the headset remote from the telephone itself, as is possible with ‘hands-free’ kits. Considerations of consumer protection dictate that this solution should not simply be an option, but that a general standard should be laid down in the European Union requiring headsets not to be mounted on the telephone itself but on a flex to ensure that radiation is not emitted close to the user’s head. The cost of this design change to all new mobile telephones should not be especially great, and as their life is relatively short, these harmful telephones should be eliminated by natural wastage over a short period.
Will the Commission submit proposals for a new technical standard for mobile telephones to eliminate the risk from radiation?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(12 June 2001)
Based upon existing legislation relating to the safety of mobile telephones (1), the Commission has issued mandate M/305 (2) to the European Standardisation Organisations asking for the production of standards on electromagnetic fields (EMF) generated by equipment within the scope of the two aforementioned directives.
In particular, priority has been given to developing such standards in relation to mobile phones. The first sets of standards will be available in April 2001. This first set will deal with methods of measurement for EMF emitted by mobile phones and limits that are fully in line with the limits given in the Council Recommendation. The limits in the Council Recommendation follow a precautionary principle and have a safety factor of more than 50 in relation to acute danger.
According to the principles of the New Approach, Community legislation describes the essential requirements (such as health, safety, etc. …), whilst standardisation bodies develop standards giving technical expression to these requirements which, when applied provide for a presumption of conformity. Manufacturers are therefore encouraged to invent new ways of constructing mobile phones in order to comply with the requirements. One of these solutions might be as described by the Honourable Member. C 340 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
For the above reasons the Commission has taken the approach of using standards for measurements and limits, leaving the design solutions to the manufacturers.
(1) the Radio Equipment and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 (OJ L 91, 7.4.1999) and the Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (OJ L 77, 26.3.1973) and upon the limits as detailed in the Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz (OJ L 199, 30.7.1999). (2) The full text of the mandate M/305 can be found on the following homepage: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/ electr_equipment/lv/index.htm (look under EMF).
(2001/C 340 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0733/01 by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 March 2001)
Subject: Benchmarking in employment and education
The 2000 Lisbon European Council asked the Council and the Commission to address: ‘improving employability and reducing skills gaps; … giving higher priority to lifelong learning as a basic component of the European social model; … increasing employment in services, including personal services, where there are major shortages; … [and] furthering all aspects of equal opportunities.’ What steps have been taken to address each of these four elements, and, where appropriate, what benchmarks have been established?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(6 June 2001)
The Commission reviewed overall progress since the Lisbon European Council in its synthesis report to the Stockholm European Council of 23/24 March 2001 (1). The four priorities the Honourable Member refers to are being addressed within the European Employment Strategy, and the eEurope Action Plan and its eLearning component.
The Employment Guidelines for 2001 (2) have incorporated these objectives in a detailed way, setting also specific European or national targets as appropriate. Member States reflect the Employment Guidelines in their employment policies and their success in doing so will be set out in the Joint Employment Report for 2001 based on analysis of National Action Plans to be submitted by Member States in May 2001.
The European Social Fund (ESF) is the Community’s main financial tool for supporting the European Employment Strategy and hence, also, these four objectives.
Furthermore, the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to other initiatives which are complementing the Guidelines in the Lisbon follow-up:
The above-mentioned Commission Communication to the Stockholm European Council sets as one of its ten priorities the development by 2005 of new European labour markets open to all and accessible for all. This is backed up by a more extensive Communication (3) which identifies where progress is needed and which calls for the establishment of a High Level Task Force on skills and mobility. The report of the Task Force will form the basis of the Action Plan on the new European labour markets which the Commission will be submitting in time for the Spring European Council in 2002.
A report on the concrete future objectives of education and training systems was adopted by the Council on 12 February 2001 (4) and submitted to the Stockholm European Council. The Council was requested, together with the Commission, to present a report to the Spring European Council in 2002 containing a detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems. Indicators and benchmarks will be key elements of the follow-up process. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/79
Employment and education issues are also addressed by the eEurope Action Plan, which was endorsed by the Feira European Council in June 2000. The key aims of eEurope in this area are to contribute to filling the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) skills gap, to give workers the skills they need to work and ensure participation for all in the knowledge-based economy.
The follow-up of the implementation of the targets of the eEurope Action Plan is based on the benchmarking of national progress according to a set of indicators, including education related indicators agreed by the Council on 30 November 2000 (5). Indicators related to working and participation in the knowledge-based economy are the percentage of the workforce with (at least) basic Information technology (IT) training; the number of places and graduates in ICT-related third- level education; the percentage of the workforce using telework; and the number of Public Internet Points (PIAPS) per 1 000 inhabitants.
In addition the High level Group on the Employment and Social Dimension of the Information Society ESDIS has drawn up a Benchmarking Report following-up the ‘Strategies for jobs in the Information Society’ (6) for which Member State data and a specific Eurobarometer survey on ‘ICT and working’ (results November 2000) have been used with the view of further assessing impact of the Information Society on jobs, and fulfilling ESDIS mandates under the eEurope action plan.
Moreover a specific Action Plan ‘eLearning: Designing tomorrow’s education’ was adopted on 28 March 2001 by the Commission (7) to ensure that the eEurope Action Plan is taken forward in the field of education and training.
A Memorandum on lifelong learning (8) has launched a consultation involving, both in Member States and at Community level, social partners, public authorities, learning and related service providers and civil society. The results will be used by the Commission for drafting an action plan in the second half of 2001 including the development of indicators and benchmarking.
The new Programme relative to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005) has now commenced and the priority theme for 2001/2002 is ‘Equal pay’ (9).
(1) Commission Communication ‘Realising the European Union’s potential: consolidating and extending the Lisbon strategy’ COM(2001) 79 final. (2) Council Decision 2001/63 EC of 19 January 2001 (OJ L 22, 24.1.2001). (3) COM(2001) 116 final. (4) Press:46 No: 5927/01. (5) See Note from the French Presidency on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/information_society/eeurope/documentation/ update/index_en.htm. (6) SEC(2001) 222 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/info_soc/esdis/index.htm). (7) Commission Communication ‘e-Learning Designing tomorrow’s education’ COM(2001) 172 final. (8) Commission staff working paper SEC(2000) 1832. (9) Council Decision 2001/51/EC of 20 December 2000 (OJ L 17, 19.1.2001).
(2001/C 340 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0737/01
by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 March 2001)
Subject: Mobility of researchers
The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Council and the Commission, together with the Member States where appropriate, to ‘take steps to remove obstacles to the mobility of researchers in Europe by 2002 and to attract and retain high-quality research talent in Europe.’ What steps have been taken? C 340 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(2 May 2001)
In accordance with conclusions of the Lisbon European Council, the Research Council of 15 June 2000 adopted a Resolution requesting that the Commission and the Member States cooperate fully to remove obstacles to the mobility of researchers by 2002. A panel of high-level national experts was thus set up during the Summer of 2000. Four different types of obstacles were defined, for which concrete measures will be drawn up: legal and administrative obstacles; social and cultural obstacles; career-related obstacles; and obstacles of a cross-sectorial nature. The high-level group held four meetings between October 2000 and March 2001. It sent its report to the Commission on 4 April 2001.
Following the work carried out by the high-level group, the Commission will draw up a communication on the mobility of researchers within the European Research Area by June 2001. In this, the Commission will set out a series of proposals promoting a favourable environment for the mobility of researchers throughout their career.
These actions will be carried out in conjunction with other existing or developing initiatives in the field of mobility, such as the proposal for a recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobility within the Community for students, people undergoing training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers; (1) the Mobility Action Plan (2), a High-Level Skills and Mobility Task Force; and the Group of Directors-General responsible for the public sector.
(1) COM(1999) 708 final. (2) OJ C 371, 23.12.2000.
(2001/C 340 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0738/01 by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 March 2001)
Subject: Mobility of students, teachers and trainers
The 2000 Lisbon European Council called upon ‘the Member States, in line with their constitutional rules, the Council and the Commission to take the necessary steps within their areas of competence to define, by the end of 2000, the means for fostering the mobility of students, teachers and training and research staff both through making the best use of existing Community programmes (Socrates, Leonardo, Youth), by removing obstacles and through greater transparency in the recognition of qualifications and periods of study and training.’ Was this target achieved?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2001)
The Council and the Commission are working hard to implement the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council, notably by accelerating the procedure for adopting the proposal for a recommendation on mobility (1), which provides that the Commission shall present a report on the implementation of the recommended measures every two years. This report will be drafted with the help of the Ad Hoc Expert Group with a view to allowing the exchange of information and experience on the different aspects of the recommendation and to encouraging the implementation of the recommendations in the Member States.
Following Parliament’s second reading, the Education Council is expected to adopt the recommendation definitively on 28 May 2001.
The recommendation proposed by the Commission invites each Member State to take the measures they judge to be appropriate to eliminate barriers to mobility among the target groups. It focuses on measures to promote a European qualifications area, to enable those concerned to report on qualifications obtained 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/81
and experience acquired in the host country, notably via the use of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), the ‘Europass-Training’ document, the European diploma supplement, and more transparent formats for vocational training certificates. The recommendation also envisages the widest possible use of good practices and important tools developed by the Community programmes (Socrates, Leonardo and Youth).
Besides, at the initiative of the French Presidency, on 14 December 2000 the Council of Ministers, with the Commission’s support, adopted a Resolution concerning an action plan for mobility, with a view to fleshing out the measures advocated in the recommendation. This action plan contains 42 concrete action lines.
The Nice European Council of December 2000, in ratifying this action plan, calls for an evaluation every two years to measure progress made in implementing the action plan. This evaluation will be prepared together with the report provided for under the recommendation, with the support of the Expert Group.
While recognising that the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth Community programmes represent appreciable progress and play an essential role, the action plan, in its fourth chapter, proposes measures to make the most of periods of mobility and gain recognition of the experience acquired (development of the system of recognition and equivalence of diplomas and training, recognition of experience gained and gaining more from periods of mobility).
Some of the measures in the recommendation and the action plan, notably those concerning the recognition of qualifications, are already being addressed in specific Commission actions (‘Europass- Training’ Decision, Directive on the recognition of diplomas, work of the Transparency Forum).
Finally, mobility is one of the key features of the Commission’s Communication ‘New European Labour Markets, Open to All, with Access for All’ (2), which, while recognising that the Community-level policy coordination instruments already play an important role, stresses that the 2001 Employment Guidelines and the 2000 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines both call on Member States to enhance labour mobility and to facilitate access to labour market training, education and life-long learning.
The Stockholm European Council of March 2001 recognises that the modernisation of labour markets and labour mobility need to be encouraged to allow greater adaptability to change by breaking down existing barriers. The Council invites the Commission to create a high-level task force on skills and mobility to examine the characteristics and barriers within the European labour market. Besides, the Council stresses the importance of adopting the mobility recommendation by June 2001 and the parallel implementation of the action plan on mobility. The feasibility of a European mobility site will be examined before the end of 2001.
With regard to the mobility of researchers, the Lisbon European Council also called on the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary measures to remove obstacles to mobility by 2002. Following a resolution of the Research Council of 15 June 2000 (3), a High-Level Expert Group on Improving Mobility of Researchers was set up and began its work in summer 2000. Four types of obstacles were identified (legal and administrative obstacles; social and cultural obstacles; inter-sectoral obstacles; and obstacles relating to the career of a researcher). The group’s report was presented in April 2001, as planned (4). It contains a detailed account of the obstacles facing researchers in Europe, concrete proposals for removing these obstacles and a list of examples of good practice.
On the basis of the High-Level Expert Group’s conclusions, the Commission will present a communication to the June 2001 Research Council entitled ‘A mobility strategy for the European research area’, which identifies a range of measures specifically designed to promote the mobility of researchers in Europe. C 340 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Hence both the Council and the Commission have made significant progress in creating the necessary instruments to achieve the objective laid down by the Lisbon European Council of March 2000.
(1) Proposal for a recommendation of the Parliament and of the Council on mobility within the Community for students, persons undergoing training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers COM(1999) 708 final. (2) COM(2001) 116 final. (3) OJ C 205, 19.7.2000. (4) High-Level Expert Group on Improving Mobility of Researchers, Final Report, 4 April 2001.
(2001/C 340 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0740/01 by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission
(9 March 2001)
Subject: VAT on radiology equipment
Does the Commission take the view that the technical flat-rate fee received from social security bodies for scanner and MRI tests is exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 13(A)(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 77/ 388/EEC (1) of 15 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (known as the Sixth VAT Directive)?
Is there a difference in treatment depending on whether the body which owns the equipment is a legal entity involved in commercial activities (company limited by shares, limited liability company, economic interest grouping) or not (nonstock corporation)?
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(31 May 2001)
Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, exempts from VAT hospital and medical care and closely related activities undertaken by bodies governed by public law or, under social conditions comparable to those applicable to bodies governed by public law, by hospitals, centres for medical treatment or diagnosis and other duly recognised establishments of a similar nature. Article 13A(2) allows Member States to set certain conditions where the exemption is granted to bodies other than those governed by public law. In addition, Article 13A(1)(c) exempts from VAT the provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions as defined by the Member State concerned.
Although these exemptions are broadly the same in all Member States, it is left to national governments to define the exact coverage. This is because the nature of health systems vary from state to state. As a result the VAT exemption overall may vary slightly across the Community.
The provision of a scan or a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test to a patient will come within these exemptions provided that there is a service provided by one of the eligible bodies, for a consideration in accordance with Article 6 of the Directive. In some Member States where a patient receives diagnosis, they may be required to pay a proportion of the examination fee with the bulk of the charge being paid by a health insurance fund. This third party consideration will not affect the exemption.
Where the diagnosis is provided by a body other than one governed by public law, the VAT status of the supply will be dependent on whether it is provided under social conditions comparable to those applicable to bodies governed by public law and whether the Member State in question has set conditions in accordance with Article 13A(2). These conditions include, for example: non-profit making aims; voluntary management; approved pricing structures; and the unlikelihood of any competitive distortion. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/83
It is possible, therefore, that within the terms of the Sixth VAT Directive, a legal entity involved in commercial activities with the intention of profit, could be excluded from the exemption in some Member States under the provisions of these articles.
(2001/C 340 E/096) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0743/01 by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 March 2001)
Subject: Budget Item A-3037
At present the European Women’s Lobby receives all the funding from Item A-3037, a total of € 600 000 for 2001. Can the Commission give a breakdown on how the money is spent and indicate what access other NGOs involved in women’s rights have to similar funding?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(18 June 2001)
Following the decision of the Parliament, the amount under budget line A-3037 is dedicated to the European Women’s Lobby (EWL) (€ 600 000 in 2000, € 650 000 in 2001). The Commission has no discretion on this. As decided by the Parliament, the Commission will pay 80 % of the real expenses up to the total amount under the budget line.
EWL’s budget planning for 2000 (the deadline for handing in the final accounts for 2000 was 31 March 2001):
(€) Administrative expenses 149 490 Salaries 413 900 Meeting expenses 112 500 Expenses for the General Assembly 74 150 Total 750 000
Main activities carried out by the EWL in 2000:
The preparations for the United Nations Special Session to review and assess progress made in implementing the Beijing platform for action (Beijing+5) were a major area of activity, as the EWL co- ordinated the production of the Regional Alternative Report for the Community.
The EWL monitored the work of the Convention for the Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, issuing regular briefing papers.
The Policy Action Centre on Violence against women focused its activities on the fight against trafficking in women and lobbying for better international legal protection.
The EWL launched a campaign on Women Asylum Seekers, which will run throughout 2001 to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and the developments within the Union concerning asylum and refugee procedures.
During the second half of 2000, the secretariat of the EWL launched a broad consultation process involving EWL’s whole membership of 2700 women’s organisations concerning the Social Policy Agenda. The EWL made a full analysis of the document and made a formal intervention during the Conference of Ministers on Gender Equality in Paris on 27 October 2000. C 340 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
The EWL followed very closely the policy developments linked to the modification of Council Directive 76/207/EEC 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 (1). A joint letter and press release were drafted with the European Trade Union Confederation on the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace in June 2000. The EWL has been working in the field of women and globalisation (international trade) since June 2000, taking an active part in the civil society meetings organised by the Directorate General for Trade. Two position papers have been prepared. In September 2000, the EWL launched its new web-site (2). A wide range of documents, news and information on urgent action campaigns is now available, and there has been a significant increase in the use of the EWL web-site. The EWL is intensifying its working contacts and activities with women’s organisations from the accession countries. Following unanimous agreement at the General Assembly in 2000, the EWL is in the process of developing a Policy Centre on Women and Enlargement. Funding possibilities for other non governmental organisations (NGOs): NGOs and other organisations can obtain funding for their activities under the new ‘Programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005)’ (3). This Programme shall co-ordinate, support and co-finance the implementation of horizontal activities under five fields of intervention: economic life, equal participation and representation, social rights, civil life, gender roles and stereotypes. The financial reference amount for the implementation of the Programme for the period 2001-2005 will be € 50 million. Besides this gender equality targeted programme, there are numerous other funding possibilities, like the Structural Funds, EQUAL, Leonardo, Socrates, the Fifth framework programme for Research and Technological Development, Daphne and STOP, to name just a few.
(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976. (2) http://www.womenlobby.org/. (3) OJ L 17, 19.1.2001.
(2001/C 340 E/097) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0745/01 by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission (13 March 2001)
Subject: The information society
The Forum for the Information Society recently published a report entitled ‘A European Way for the Information Society’. That report highlights all the economic, societal, cultural and citizenship challenges arising from the emergence of the information society and its associated technologies.
Is the Commission planning to publish a communication on the basis of that report?
What action does it intend to take, within the limits of its powers and responsibilities, on the recommendations set out in the report?
What is the agenda of the Forum for the Information Society in 2001?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (19 June 2001)
The Commission welcomed the latest report of the Information Society Forum (ISF) ‘A European Way for the Information Society’ in a press conference held in Brussels on 23 March 2000, attended by the member of the Commission responsible for Enterprises and Information Society and the ISF President. The report was also discussed in the dedicated conference on ‘Information Society, Globalisation and Sustainable Development: The Promise of the European Way’, held in context of the Hanover EXPO on 6 October 2000. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/85
About 7 500 copies of the report have been distributed to professional and trade federations, as well as to some institutions of national and local government, libraries, schools, and universities.
A number of the recommendations, which are part of the latest ISF report, have been taken up and turned into concrete actions in the context of the eEurope initiative, and in particular those concerning cheaper access to electronic networks, life-long learning, government on-line and European digital content.
For the time being the Commission is not planning a specific Communication on the basis of such a report but it is studying alternative ways of implementing its main recommendations.
The Commission is currently examining the ways to raise the profile of the Information Society Forum in the context of diminished human and financial resources at its disposal for the support of the Forum.
(2001/C 340 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0748/01 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Council
(15 March 2001)
Subject: Launching a case under the WTO’s dispute settlement procedures (133 Committee decision)
When a decision is taken in the 133 Committee to launch a case within the WTO’s dispute settlement procedures, are the details of the decision recorded in writing? If not, why not? If such records to exist, are they made available to the public? If not, why not?
Reply
(13 July 2001)
1. The Council would give a reminder that decisions concerning the common commercial policy are adopted, in accordance with Article 133 of the Treaty, by the Council acting on the basis of Commission proposals or recommendations.
2. The Council would also point out to the Honourable Member that the results of the Article 133 Committee’s proceedings are recorded in writing in documents of the Council General Secretariat and that public access to Council documents is covered by Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993, as amended by Council Decisions 96/705/EC of 6 December 1996 and 2000/527/EC of 14 August 2000, laying down the cases in which confidentiality must be maintained, especially in commercial and industrial matters.
(2001/C 340 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0749/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: The role of the Commission’s Representations to third countries
What instructions as the Commission given to its representatives in its foreign missions throughout the world concerning the reception of visiting parliamentarians? C 340 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(16 May 2001)
On the occasion of official visits (e.g. by the President, a Vice-President, or by the President of a Parliamentary Delegation or Committee) of the Parliament to third countries the Delegation of the Commission, in co-ordination with the services of the Parliament and through the intermediary of the Commission services in Brussels, provides assistance in the preparation of the visit. It also provides briefings and, as far as possible, logistic support. The Head of Delegation, as a general rule, accompanies such visits throughout their duration. The Delegation also organises contacts with the media and, where possible, organises a reception for the Parliamentary visitor(s). The Delegation also provides follow-up information on the results of the visit, notably the reactions of the local media.
For unofficial visits or visits from a single Parliamentary group, the visiting Member of the European Parliament or the competent bodies of the European Parliament inform the Commission of the visit and of the help that is requested. The Delegation responds to these requests as instructed by the Commission services and far as it is able to. In these cases as a general rule the Delegation does not take initiatives vis-à- vis the government.
(2001/C 340 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0763/01 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Tax on second-hand cars imported from other EU countries
On 22 February 2001, the European Court of Justice handed down judgment in Case C-393/98. According to this judgment, Portugal is not entitled to tax second-hand cars imported from other EU countries.
Danish legislation seeks to discourage second-hand car imports from other European countries by levying a registration duty determined according to the estimated value of the imported car. Duty is calculated on the basis of prior valuation and subsequent inspection.
The duty in question can vary significantly but is usually about 200 %. There are documented cases of 500 % duty being charged, which is clearly prohibitive even with Denmark’s already high taxes on new cars.
Can the Commission state whether it considers the above judgment regarding Portugal to be applicable, by analogy, to the Danish duty on imported second-hand cars?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of Commission
(18 June 2001)
The Commission confirms that it believes the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice on 22 February 2001 in Case C-393/98, Gomes Valente, may have implications beyond the actual dispute referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
The following points in particular emerge from the Commission’s initial analysis:
The Court states that in order to avoid the administrative burden inherent in a system in which actual is determined by an assessment or expert examination of every vehicle, a Member State might be able to establish, by means of fixed scales determined by statute, regulation or administrative provision and calculated on the basis of criteria such as a vehicle’s age, kilometrage, general condition, method of propulsion, make or model, a value for second-hand vehicles which, as a general rule, would be very close to their actual value.
The Court insists that even under a new system taking the above factors into account an individual must be able to challenge the administration’s assessment. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/87
The Court points out that the principle of neutrality as between Member States does not in any way mean eliminating the competitive advantage of second-hand vehicles which could be bought more cheaply in another Member State.
These points are likely to apply to Denmark among other countries.
(2001/C 340 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0765/01 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Capital investment
Further to my previous Question E-1417/00 (1), is the Commission yet in a position to provide the figures requested, i.e. would the Commission list capital investment, since 1988, within each Member State in the following categories:
oil and gas extraction;
manufacturing; distribution;
hotels and catering;
financial business services;
transport and communications;
private dwellings?
(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 54.
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2001)
In statistics the ‘Capital investment’ is usually measured through a macroeconomic aggregate called ‘Gross fixed capital formation’.
Its latest data are listed in the two attachments, which are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
The first of the attachment sent is based on the current Methodology ESA 95, the second on the former one ESA 79 (The ESA is the European System of Accounts, the standard Methodology in this field).
As the data under ESA 95 are not yet fully available, the data under ESA 79 are attached as well, these are available only up to 1997.
The increase in level between ESA 95 and ESA 79 is due to an extension of coverage, in particular the inclusion of certain intangible investments (software, data bases, art …), mineral exploration (successful or not), civil equipment used by military (airports, hospitals, …), etc.
The matching between the branches of the Honourable Member’s request and the available ones is as follows:
1. Under ESA 95 (Nomenclature NACE rev. 1 Level A31): mining and quarrying of energy producing materials; manufacturing; construction; C 340 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
wholesale and retail trade (includes repairing); hotels and restaurants; transport, storage and communication; financial intermediation.
2. Under ESA 79 (Nomenclature NACE-CLIO, Level R25): fuel and power products; manufactured products; building and construction; recovery and repair services, wholesale and retail trade services; lodging and catering services; inland transport services; maritime and air transport services; auxiliary transport services; communication services; total transport services and communications [in italics above]; services of credit and insurance institutions.
(2001/C 340 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0770/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: The Commission’s criticism of the Irish government’s fiscal policy
Does the Commission accept the view of the European Central Bank that inflation is essentially a monetary phenomenon, and, if so, does it accept that the current level of inflation and overheating of the economy in Ireland is due not to the Irish government’s fiscal policy (accepting that fiscal policy can alter the balance between the private and public sectors and, therefore, the efficiency in the allocation of resources and the future productive capacity of the economy) but to the inappropriateness of the ‘one-size-fits-all’ interest rate within the eurozone area which would pose significant problems for the U.K. were it to join the euro?
Could the Commission also explain why it chose to criticise Ireland, which, by common consent, has one of the most successful economies in the eurozone, and not France which has very high levels of public expenditure or Spain, which has a higher rate of inflation than Ireland?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(16 May 2001)
The Commission believes that fiscal policy can contribute positively or negatively to economic stability, including price stability. Moreover, the lack of a national monetary policy in monetary union implies that economic policy tools that remain under the independent authority of national governments, such as fiscal policy, must be used more actively to achieve macro-economic stabilisation.
The spectacular growth rates of the Irish economy have recently led to overheating, with a positive output gap, a tightening labour market and high inflation. In the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs) for 2000, the Irish authorities committed themselves to gearing budgetary policy to the objective of economic stability, which, given the extent of overheating, should be interpreted as the need for a neutral, or preferably, tighter fiscal stance. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/89
The stability/convergence programmes and the implementation of budgetary plans in all EU member states are examined closely by the Commission and the Council, which may decide to issue and publish recommendations whenever it deems there is inconsistency with the adopted BEPGs.
In the Commission’s and Council’s view, Irish budget plans for 2001, announced in December 2000, are stimulatory and pro-cyclical and therefore inconsistent with the BEPGs. The Council therefore issued, for the first time, a recommendation to end the inconsistency with the BEPGs.
The situations of the French and Spanish economies are different and policy is not construed as having contradicted the BEPGs. The French economy has one of the lowest inflation rates in the euro zone. Moreover, French fiscal policy cannot be considered as pro-cyclical. Spain is indeed currently experiencing a high rate of inflation, but fiscal policy has been and continues to be restrictive and also therefore is not pro-cyclical.
(2001/C 340 E/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0773/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Cultivation of grapes to produce certain varieties of dried grapes
On 22 July 1999 the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 1621/1999 (1) on aid for the cultivation of grapes to produce certain varieties of dried grapes.
Since this regulation came into force and despite its generous provisions, in Málaga province (Spain) the area given over to muscatel grapes intended for the production of dried grapes has been reduced.
The regulation establishes a contract-based system as the main channel for receiving aid. However, the deadlines chosen are creating producer insecurity: 1 August is too early to set a price adjusted to demand (muscatel raisins are traditionally sold at Christmas), and the contract mechanism thus obliges producers to make a contract on pain of not receiving any Community aid.
In the last marketing year prices were offered in November to non-contract producers at a level exceeding by ESP 100/kg the average price laid down in contracts signed three months previously. While the regulation provides for the possibility of negotiating, in practice this does not happen since buyers are not interested: accordingly, the contract price prevails.
Some standard contracts define the payment date as being six months from delivery of the dried grapes: this is too long a time-lag for fragile economies such as those of this sector. Buyers may also attempt to tie the date of payment of Community aid (31 May) to the date of payment for the product.
Is the Commission willing to consider altering the contract timetable for muscatel grapes cultivated in Málaga province with a view to the production of dried grapes by setting a date (e.g. 31 October) more in line with demand for the product?
Should this not be possible, would the Commission consider introducing a system to put an end to the dominant position of the buyer in the case of dried grapes?
Would the Commission consider proposing that the contract should no longer make reference to the payment date, given that this is not required under Regulation (EC) No 1621/1999, or, should such reference continue to be made, that the payment period should in future not extend up to the delivery deadline?
(1) OJ L 192, 24.7.1999, p. 21. C 340 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 2001)
Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1621/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards aid for the cultivation of grapes to produce certain varieties of dried grapes (1) stipulates that the aid is to be granted on specialised plots, production from which has been delivered to processors under contracts.
That provision meets the producers’ need for security as regards the disposal of their production as well as that of the processors as regards supplies to their plants.
The time limit for signing contracts strikes a fair balance between the need for the contract to be drawn up early enough to be fully effective and the competing need for operators to be provided with up-to-date data on the coming harvest.
Over the marketing year fluctuations in prices for perennial crops and non-perishable products are slight. Nonetheless, the Commission made provision in Article 5(2) of the abovementioned Regulation to allow prices agreed upon in contracts to be revised up to 30 November 2001.
The selling price is to be agreed between the contracting parties. The time limit for payment is one of the components of the price. The Commission will look into the advisability of bringing this time limit into line with those applying in other aid schemes for products processed from fruit and vegetables.
However, the best way to strengthen the producers’ position vis-à-vis the distributors and processors is to improve producer organisation and increase the concentration of supply. To that end Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (2) provides for specific measures to encourage the setting-up and development of producer organisations.
(1) OJ L 192, 24.7.1999. (2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.
(2001/C 340 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0774/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Crisis in Turkey
The severe crisis in Turkey following the political clash between its president and prime minister has forced the government to float the currency, which is continuing in free fall against the US dollar and has lost as much as 43 % of its value in dollar terms. The currency has been devalued with IMF support, even though that same body had, in December 2000, injected USD 7,5 billion into the Turkish economy, in the last instalment of an international loan package. The immediate knock-on effect of the Turkish crisis on emerging economies, from eastern Europe through Latin America to Asia, has once again demonstrated that financial globalisation is here to stay and that it operates in trigger fashion, not only when there is a major disturbance in a G7 country but also when problems occur in one of the larger emerging economies, such as Turkey.
Having shut the door on Ankara in Luxembourg in December 1997, the EU revised its position two years later in Helsinki, to add Turkey to the twelve eastern European and Mediterranean candidates on the waiting list for accession. Given Turkey’s severe problems in achieving monetary stability and meeting the convergence criteria, what is the Commission’s current position on the matter? What is the present state of play on the reforms embarked on by Turkey concerning respect for human rights and recognition of the cultural identity of the Kurdish minority, as preconditions for any launch of the accession process? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/91
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(1 June 2001)
The Commission is closely monitoring economic developments in Turkey. It expects that a strong and credible economic programme will be finalised in the near future in close co-operation with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The success of the programme hinges on its rigorous implementation in combination with support from the international community and the private sector. The reform measures, which have been announced should, if properly implemented, further accelerate the implementation of the economic reform priorities set out in the Accession Partnership (1).
As the Member of the Commission responsible for Enlargement indicated on 26 March 2001, the Commission welcomes the adoption on 19 March 2001 of the National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA) by the Turkish Government. This document is an important landmark in Turkey’s preparation for Union membership and the first stage in a far-reaching programme of political reform. It is Turkey’s interpretation of the Union’s Accession Partnership. With regard to the political criteria for Union membership, a first analysis suggests that further efforts will be required in areas such as ensuring cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin as mentioned by the Honourable Member.
(1) OJ L 85, 24.3.2001.
(2001/C 340 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0776/01 by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Use of animal meal as feed in fish farming
In view of the growing risk of the spread of BSE and the implications for human health:
1. Will the Commission say whether there are any EU regulations on the use of animal by-products as feed in fish farming?
2. Is it aware of health problems involving fish farms where animal meal has been used as feed?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 2001)
In addressing the questions posed by the Honourable Member it is necessary to highlight that most of the fish species farmed for food production are in their natural environment carnivorous species. When farmed, they need to be fed mainly with feedingstuffs composed of large amounts of products of animal origin and mainly of fish meal and fish oil.
1. The legal basis for the use of products of animal origin in animal nutrition, including farmed fish, is Council 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 (1). Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein (2), as last amended by Commission Decision 2001/ 165/EC of 27 February 2001 (3), further restricts the use in animal nutrition of products of animal origin.
2. Certain fish diseases may be transmitted to farmed fish fed with raw fish or unprocessed fish waste. For this reason it is current practice to avoid such feeding. C 340 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
The Commission is monitoring closely any new scientific development in relation to possible trans- missibility of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) agents to other farmed animals including fish. In this context, the Commission has not been informed of particular health problems affecting farmed fish fed with meals of animal origin. However, the Commission is currently supporting a project in the framework of the TSE Action Plan for research which looks into the potential transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and scrapie to fish. Preliminary results are expected soon and they will be evaluated accordingly.
(1) OJ L 363, 27.12.1990. (2) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000. (3) OJ L 58, 28.2.2001.
(2001/C 340 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0778/01 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council
(15 March 2001)
Subject: Recent statements by the Belgian foreign minister
The Council:
1. Will it condemn the bizarre statements made by the colourful Belgian foreign minister, Louis Michel, concerning possible sanctions against Italy in the event of the Casa delle Libertà party winning the forthcoming elections there?
2. Will it ask the Belgian minister to refrain from attending Community meetings?
Reply
(13 July 2001)
It is not for the Council to comment on statements such as those referred to in the Honourable Member’s question.
(2001/C 340 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0780/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(15 March 2001)
Subject: Government coalitions with extreme right-wing parties
If Silvio Berlusconi, chairman of Forza Italia and a member of the EPP group in the European Parliament, is elected prime minister of Italy, this will show whether the European Union is consistent in its attitude towards Member States. The EU is at risk of applying double standards and it is beginning to look as if there is one set of rules for the large Member States and another set for the small Member States. The next few months will show whether this is so.
Forza Italia can only come to power with two coalition partners which both have much in common with the Austrian FPÖ of Jörg Haider. His leading ally, and probable deputy prime minister, Gianfranco Fini of the Alleanza Nazionale, has built his party on the ruins of the old Fascist movement. Although the Alleanza Nazionale has been at pains to distance itself from its extremist origins, the party still cherishes the legacy of the Mussolini era. The similarity with Haider’s Nazi sympathies is striking. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/93
Hence, Europe will shortly be faced with a political dilemma: is the Union prepared to apply the same criteria to the larger Member States? Last tear the Austrian FPÖ formed a coalition with the conservative ÖVP. The fact that a populist party with a xenophobic reputation was able to come to power in an EU Member State caused an upheaval amongst the other fourteen Member States.
If an extreme right-wing party, the Alleanza Nazionale, forms part of the government after the next elections in Italy, will the Council apply the same measures that were applied on the formation of the ÖVP-FPÖ coalition in Austria? If not, why is the Council applying double standards to the formation of a government coalition with an extreme right-wing party in Austria (FPÖ), on the one hand, and Italy (Alleanza Nazionale), on the other?
(2001/C 340 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0819/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Coalition governments incorporating extreme right-wing parties
If the leader of Forza Italia and PPE Member of the European Parliament Silvio Berlusconi is elected as the new prime minister of Italy, it will become clear whether the European Union is consistent in its attitude towards Member States. The European Union is in danger of adopting double standards. It is beginning to look as if there is one rule for the big Member States and another for the small ones. In the next few months we shall discover whether this is indeed the case.
Forza Italia can only come to power in alliance with two coalition partners, both of which have important elements in common with Jörg Haider’s FPÖ in Austria. One of them is Umberto Bossi’s Lega Nord. On the margins of the NATO summit on Wednesday, 28 February, the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to the Lega Nord’s leader as ‘a fascist’.
Thus Europe will shortly face a political dilemma: is the Union prepared to apply the same standards to medium-sized and large Member States? Last year the Austrian FPÖ formed a coalition with the conservative ÖVP. The other 14 Member States were shocked to see a populist party with a reputation for xenophobia come to power in an EU Member State. Austria was subjected to a political sanctions regime which involved suspending bilateral diplomatic contacts.
Will the Council apply the same standards if a party whose leader has been described by the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs as ‘a fascist’, namely the Lega Nord, forms part of the Italian Government after the forthcoming elections, by analogy with the measures adopted upon the formation of the ÖVP-FPÖ coalition in Austria? If not, why is the Council applying double standards to the formation of coalition governments which include a party of the extreme right in Austria (FPÖ) on the one hand and Italy (Lega Nord) on the other?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0780/01 and E-0819/01
(13 July 2001)
The Council reminds the Honourable Member that the measures concerning Austria to which he refers were decided by the governments of 14 Member States and not by the Council. C 340 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0792/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Minimum requisites for environmental impact assessments
On a number of occasions it has been demonstrated that many environmental impact assessments do not comply with the objectives originally sought when such studies were made compulsory for projects having environmental implications. Some undertakings which are obliged to submit such studies consider them to be a purely formal requirement something to be performed by themselves to pay lip-service to the rules.
What is the Commission’s assessment of the real usefulness of environmental impact assessments?
Does the Commission consider that these studies are meeting the objectives for which they were introduced?
Does the Commission not believe that it should introduce a proposal on the minimum criteria for environmental impact assessments, established in such a way as to ensure that they will no longer be treated by many as a purely formal requirement?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(14 May 2001)
The Environment impact assessment (EIA) Directive 85/337/EEC of the Council, of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) has proved to be a very successful instrument of environmental protection focussing particularly on the precautionary principle. Being a framework Directive, by its nature, it sets out minimum requirements which have to be further specified and implemented by the Member States.
The EIA Directive is considered to be a procedural Directive which sets out main steps to be taken by Member States in order to achieve its goal. These steps are the elaboration of an environmental report, the involvement of the public and environmental authorities concerned, the taking into account of these results in decision-making and the information about the decision to the players involved. In case of transboundary impacts Member States likely to be significantly affected are involved on an equal footing in the procedure following the international commitment of the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Espoo Convention on transboundary environmental impact assessment.
In the cases known to the Commission the proper application of the EIA Directive has usually improved the projects in question from an environmental perspective and given the public the opportunity to participate and contribute in a satisfactory way.
Some deficiencies revealed in a report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive 85/337/ EEC resulted in an improved Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2) amending the original Directive. The success and the importance of this instrument is also proved by the fact that the existing approach is being extended to the planning level above the project level by the future ‘Strategic Environment Assessment’ (SEA) Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (3).
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. (3) Amended proposal for a Council Directive on assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ C 83, 25.3.1999). 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/95
(2001/C 340 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0796/01 by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Council
(14 March 2001)
Subject: The workings of the Rapid Reaction Force
Last weekend at Camp David Tony Blair and President Bush gave a joint press conference having previously discussed, amongst other things, the implications of the so-called European Rapid Reaction Force. President Bush said, with the Prime Minister standing next to him, that the latter had ‘assured me that there would be a joint command, that the planning (of the Rapid Reaction Force) would take place within NATO, and that should all NATO not wish to go on a mission, that would then (my italics) serve as a catalyst for the defence forces moving on their own.’
On the previous Thursday, Tony Blair told the Canadian Parliament that ‘the initiative on European defence is not a standing army … there will be no separate EU planning structures.’
Does the Council believe that these interpretations of the workings of the Rapid Reaction Force are consistent with the Presidency Report on the European Security and Defence Policy as agreed by the Member States at Nice.
President Bush also said: ‘I was very hopeful when we discussed the Prime Minister’s vision that such a vision would encourage our NATO allies and friends to bolster their defence budgets, perhaps.’
Does the Council believe that that there is any evidence of this?
Reply
(13 July 2001)
The issue of planning, which is what the Hon. Member seems particularly interested in, is dealt with in accordance with the European Council’s decisions at Nice; strategic planning (i.e. the planning activities that start as soon as a crisis emerges and ends with European Union decision-making on the military strategic option) is done by the European Union’s Military Staff.
In developing and prioritising military strategic options, the Military Staff may draw as appropriate on planning support from external sources, in particular NATO. For operations requiring recourse to NATO assets and capabilities, operational planning will be done in NATO. For an EU operation without recourse to NATO assets and capabilities, operational planning will be carried out by a European national or multinational headquarter.
Member States also committed themselves further to improve their capabilities. It is still early days, but capabilities nationally and multinationally are being improved in ways which would not be taking place in the absence of the ESDP. The Progress Catalogue, a first version of which should be ready at the end of the Swedish Presidency, will identify follow on initiatives where progress is needed. A main element will be the definition of the Review Mechanism outlined at Nice, which will allow the monitoring of quantitative and qualitative progress towards achieving the Headline Goal.
(2001/C 340 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0799/01 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 March 2001)
Subject: Accurate earthquake forecast
On 24 June 1999 the Commission announced on the Internet that Prenlab, which was developed by the University of Edinburgh and receives EU funding, had accurately predicted an earthquake in Iceland measuring five on the Richter Scale. On 27 and 29 October 1998 Prenlab notified the Icelandic authorities C 340 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
that an earthquake would strike Iceland and then on 10 November it predicted the exact size of the earthquake. Three days later the earthquake struck only two kilometres from the point where the station ‘tracking’ the earthquake was situated.
Will the Commission say whether the EU is making full use of the expertise of Prenlab so that human lives and property can be saved in future? Has Prenlab made any further forecasts since then? Has EU financial support continued since 1998, and what has been the total amount of this aid? Have the authorities of any Member State of the Union asked to use Prenlab’s expertise and research findings? Finally, have any other research centres worldwide made any accurate forecasts of earthquakes since 1998?
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(21 June 2001)
Prenlab (Earthquake-prediction Research in a Natural Laboratory) was a Seismic Hazard Research Project funded under the Fourth framework programme (1994-1998) with a Community contribution of € 790 000. The European Commission continued funding the Research through a further project (Prenlab-2) with a Community contribution of € 1 162 000, and more recently SM-Site (Developing Stress Monitoring Sites and Infrastructure for Forecasting Earthquakes), an infrastructure project under the Fifth framework programme (1998-2002), with a Community contribution of € 1 300 000. The scientific teams involved in Prenlab presented their results to European and Japanese peer scientists during the Community-Japan workshops on Seismic Risk held in Reykjavik, Iceland, in June 1999 and Kyoto, Japan, in March 2000.
Since the earthquake of November 1998, Prenlab has made no further official forecast. The Community continues to fund research and development carried out by this team through the SM-Site infrastructure project, with a view to obtaining future positive results. The final report of this project, presenting the final scientific results obtained, was only made available to the Commission during beginning of 2001 and, until now, no specific request has been made by any Member State to use Prenlab’s expertise and research findings. One of the most important results are the new methods for monitoring crustal processes leading to large earthquakes. Despite these promising results the validity and applicability of such forecast is being still debated in the scientific community.
Since 1998, no other research centers have made accurate short-term forecasts, but many teams worldwide prepare medium to long term forecast of seismic hazard mainly for seismic design purposes.
Prenlab will also be presented and reviewed at two important upcoming events:
The DMSG meeting (Disaster Management Support Group of the committee for earth observation satellites) to be held in Brussels from 25-27 June 2001.
The scientific review workshop of Community coordinators scheduled from 5-7 September 2001.
(2001/C 340 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/01 by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 March 2001)
Subject: Presentation of falsified Agrim import licences in connection with the release into free circulation of bananas from Central and South America
According to a request for official assistance made on 29 June 2000 to the competent authorities of the Member States, the Commission is investigating a number of companies regarding the falsification of import licences in connection with the importation of bananas from third countries into the Community. The amount concerned is estimated by the Commission to be at least 200 000 tonnes. The Commission 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/97
has been aware of such fraud since 1997. On 12 June 2000, in a case concerning Italy (Hortofruticola Acese), evidence was able to be furnished and the fraud was stopped.
The Commission:
1. Does its estimate of illegal imports of bananas into the Community refer to an annual amount or to the total amount of bananas imported fraudulently since 1997?
2. Is it the case that, in particular since 1998, imports of bananas involving fraud have led to serious disturbance on the market and to a steep fall in market prices?
3. Could the Commission indicate giving a breakdown by year the level of increase in producer subsidies since 1997?
4. In the Commission’s view, is there a connection between the trend in producer subsidies and the market price trend?
5. In the Commission’s view, what savings would have been made by the Community with regard to producer subsidies if the price trend in 1994-1996 had been maintained?
6. What losses of duties have been suffered by the Community in connection with imports of bananas without proper import licences?
7. Following the discovery of one of the cases of fraud, the Commission adopted without delay the regulation adding a new Article 26a to Regulation No 2362/98 (1) with a view to preventing further fraud involving falsified import licences or unauthorised issuing of import licences. Why did the Commission not already take such measures when it began to suspect such fraud in 1997?
(1) OJ L 293, 31.10.1998, p. 32.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(7 May 2001)
The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has indicated that at this stage around 210 000 tonnes of fraudulent banana imports have been identified in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. As the judicial enquiry is still in progress, the Commission is not in a position to give more information on the overall fraud assessment.
It is extremely difficult to judge whether the fraud has had an impact on the price of bananas and, if so, how great an impact. Other factors have had a more direct impact on price levels. In recent years, the availability of export bananas on the world market, already in surplus, increased by another 10 % primarily as a result of increased production in Ecuador. Free-on-board prices (FOB) of Ecuadorian bananas and the Community import price fell by more than 15 % between 1996 and 2000.
Other elements should also be taken into account, such as competition with other fruits, whether or not weather conditions are favourable to banana consumption, and the overall fruit consumption trend in the Community.
Unit production aid trends (EUR/100 kg):
1995: 27,18;
1996: 29,05;
1997: 24,81;
1998: 24,42;
1999: 29,69.
These figures clearly show that there is no direct link between fraud and trends in aid levels. In 1999 aid was more or less at 1996 levels, and 1996 is outside the period in which the cases of fraud were perpetrated. C 340 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Nor should it be forgotten that the flat-rate reference income, which is the reference income in calculating compensatory aid, was increased by 5 % for the 1998 marketing year and by 8 % from the 1999 marketing year.
Production aid is a type of ‘deficiency payment’. It covers the difference between the flat-rate reference income and the average price obtained in marketing Community production for a given year.
The answers to points 2 and 3 also cover this point.
The duties to be recovered should cover the difference between the rate of duty applicable outside the quota in force at the time of actual import and the preferential duty paid when the quotas were used with the forged certificates.
For the 210 000 tonnes of fraudulent imports identified at this stage, approximately € 160 million of customs duties has been lost. Recovery proceedings have been launched in the Member States concerned.
When it learned of rumours that forged import licences had been used, the Commission made inquiries in the Member States. These replied that, in their view, no frauds had been perpetrated and imports had been carried out in line with the rules.
However, owing to the persistence of these rumours, other more detailed investigations carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in collaboration with the Directorate-General for Agriculture uncovered the first evidence of these frauds.
As soon as it had more detailed information on the cases of fraud, and in particular of the nature of those frauds, the Commission felt that it was essential to take a number of measures immediately to strengthen the monitoring of import licence arrangements in the banana sector. A Regulation was adopted by the Commission to this effect on 25 July 2000 (1). It covers mainly the checks to be carried out by the body issuing the import licences on the authenticity of all licences/licence extracts used in the Community, the distribution of the list of operators registered for the banana import arrangements with the customs offices and the procedure to be followed by the customs services in the event of doubt as to the authenticity of the licences/extracts presented for the release into free circulation of the bananas.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1632/2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community (OJ L 187, 26.7.2000).
(2001/C 340 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0807/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council
(28 March 2001)
Subject: The operation of the Rapid Reaction Force
Last weekend, at Camp David, Tony Blair and President Bush held a joint press conference having previously discussed, amongst other things, the implications of the European Rapid Reaction Force. President Bush said, with the Prime Minister standing next to him, that the latter had ‘assured me that there would be a joint command, that the planning (of the Rapid Reaction Force) would take place within NATO, and that should all NATO not wish to go on a mission, that would then (my italics) serve as a catalyst for the defence forces moving on their own.’
On the previous Thursday, Tony Blair told the Canadian Parliament that ‘the initiative on European defence is not a standing army … there will be no separate EU planning structures.’
Does the Council believe that these interpretations of the workings of the Rapid Reaction Force are consistent with the Presidency Report on the European Security and Defence Policy as agreed by the Member States at Nice? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/99
President Bush also said: ‘I was very hopeful when we discussed the Prime Minister’s vision that such a vision would encourage our NATO allies and friends to bolster their defence budgets, perhaps.’
Does the Council believe that there is any evidence for this?
Reply
(16 July 2001)
The Honourable Member is kindly invited to refer to the reply to the Written Question No E-0796/01 on the workings of the Rapid Reaction Force.
(2001/C 340 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0811/01 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission
(19 March 2001)
Subject: Golf courses and water management in the European Union
In the autonomous community of Catalonia (Spain), a total of 41 of the 55 existing golf courses have been reprimanded for infringing restrictions on the use of water (450 m3 of water per hectare per month is deemed more than sufficient for maintaining the course) and for illegally using water from sites for which they lacked the necessary authorisation. Furthermore, in the autonomous community of Valencia, it is calculated that if the water use of the recently-built theme part Terra Mítica continues at its present rate, by next year it will double the deficit in water of a region that is seriously affected by drought. In addition, the park plans to build several golf courses in the surrounding area, and more courses are planned in other areas of the region, including Peñíscola, Benidorm and Finestrat. In areas with little water and low rainfall, the water used by an average golf course is equivalent to the domestic consumption of a town of 15 000 inhabitants. In order to satisfy such a high demand in this area which is lacking in water resources for golf courses and similar facilities the Spanish Government has just adopted a National Hydrological Plan, which will divert 1050 hm3 of water to these areas. The cases of Valencia and Catalonia are just examples of the situation in the Community as a whole, where golf is growing at a rate of 15 % per year. Golf courses have a high environmental impact, since in order to maintain the greens and fairways large quantities of fertilisers, weed-killers and other chemical substances are necessary which, when filtered into the subsoil, pose a pollution risk to aquifers and a considerable threat to flora and fauna.
The new framework directive on water, Directive 2000/60/EC (1) lays down the following key objectives for Community water policy:
promoting sustainable water use based on long-term protection of available water resources;
the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater
the need to take into account the characteristics of river basin districts, the environmental impact of human activity and economic analysis of water use.
What initiatives does the Commission intend to take to ensure compliance with the above provisions of Directive 2000/60/EC with regard to golf courses, particularly in those areas with low rainfall and problems of drought or desertification?
(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1. C 340 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(6 June 2001)
Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1), hereafter Water Framework Directive, entered into force on the 22 of December 2000. The Directive has a timetable for the implementation of the different requirements. For example, an analysis of the conditions in the river basin and the pressures on the waters within the river basin should be performed within four years after the entering into force of the Directive; a monitoring programme according to the Directive should be followed within six years; and, a programme of measures, that will make it possible to reach the objectives of the Directive, should be adopted within nine years. The full implementation of all the requirements of the Directive will therefore take several years. In areas where necessary, the use of water, fertilisers and other chemical substances on golf courses has to be taken into account when the different requirements according to the Directive are performed. It is a challenge to implement the requirements, however they are essential in order to achieve a good status in all waters of the Community.
It is every Member States’ obligation to properly implement the different steps of the Directive. The Commission will follow the implementation process in the Member States in order to achieve an efficient and streamlined implementation of the Directive in the whole of the Community. The Commission will follow the timetable of the Directive when examining the Member States’ compliance with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive.
(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
(2001/C 340 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0812/01 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission
(19 March 2001)
Subject: Black market in domestic animals in the EU
The black market in domestic animals in and between Community states is unregulated and does not provide any health guarantees for animals or buyers. In the autonomous community of Valencia, the association of domestic animal breeders and traders (Grecoacom) reported recently that 70 % of sales of domestic animals are carried out illegally in the face of inaction by the Generalitat, the competent Valencian authority.
The majority of the animals sold on the black market are subject neither to health controls nor to the compulsory delousing procedures, and are reared in premises that are unsuited to their physical needs.
Clearly, there is a gap in legislation in this area at European Union level. While existing Community legislation regulates the transport of domestic animals between countries, their use in cosmetic testing and the trade in exotic animals, there are no legal provisions that could be used to eliminate the black market in the domestic animals sector, such as exists in Valencia.
Does the Commission intend to draw up a directive on the conditions of sale and health controls for domestic animals in the European Union?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 2001)
Intra-Community trade in domestic animals falls within the scope of different veterinary legislation as defined in Annex A to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1). 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/101
This Community legislation provides for veterinary controls for these animals when submitted to intra- Community trade and sales.
Day to day enforcement of the veterinary legislation is the responsibility of the Member States. Black markets are by definition illegal under national provisions. Consequently, the Commission has no intention to undertake additional legislative initiatives in this domain.
(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.
(2001/C 340 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0817/01 by Gian Gobbo (TDI) to the Commission
(19 March 2001)
Subject: Situation of children in Romania
The situation of children in Romania is a matter of serious concern. A large number of reports show that many Romanian children and adolescents are the victims of daily violence and abuse. Of particular concern is the situation of orphans, who live abandoned in the streets of Bucharest and Timisoara, or in prison-like conditions in orphanages.
Many of these children also suffer from AIDS and the Romanian public services are generally incapable of covering the costs of complex medical treatment.
An equally unacceptable problem is the systematic exploitation of children by the local Rom population, which is in some cases tantamount to slavery.
The Commission:
What action does it intend to take to improve the situation of Romanian children during the enlargement process?
Has it received any pieces of convincing evidence relating to press revelations about alleged trafficking in Romanian children for the benefit of child abuse networks operating in the European Union, a traffic which is believed to include illegal exports of organs and in which certain international NGOs operating in Romania are alleged to be implicated?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2001)
The Community has provided assistance to Romania since 1990, mainly through the PHARE Programme, to address the delicate situation of children in institutions. In the early years humanitarian assistance (food aid, supply of heating oil, medicines, repairs and maintenance of institutions) was predominant, in order to remediate an emergency situation. However, current programmes are designed to address the structural situation and to promote reform of Romania’s childcare system.
The Commission and the Romanian authorities are in the process of implementing a € 25 million PHARE programme to support the ongoing reform, which has the following components:
The creation and development of community integrated child welfare projects at local level, with special emphasis on preventing child abandonment and institutionalisation.
Restructuring or closure of the old-style residential care institutions by providing alternative facilities/ services.
Technical assistance (using Member States’ expertise through ‘twinning’, i.e. the secondment of national experts to the government of Romania) to facilitate co-operation between the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection services (at central and local level) with childcare departments (at central C 340 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
and local level), in order to ensure that Romania’s overall social protection policies are effective in providing support to families with children at risk, and preventing abandonment and institutional- isation of children.
A national public awareness campaign aimed at preventing abandonment of children and their re- integration into (natural or foster) families.
As for alleged trafficking in children from Romania, the Commission is aware of allegations that have appeared in the press but has no evidence as to the existence of networks carrying out such trafficking.
As far as adoptions are concerned, the 2000 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress Towards Accession (1) notes that current legislation related to inter-country adoption means that considerations, other than the best interest of the child, may prevail. It also notes that Romania should align its legislation with the The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Inter-country Adoption and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(1) COM(2000) 710 final.
(2001/C 340 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0820/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(19 March 2001)
Subject: Possible fraud in the use of ESF monies intended for training workshops run by the Confederation of Galician Businessmen
Serious irregularities in the management of Galician Confederation Businessmen, by its former President, António Ramilo, led to an as yet unexplained debt of ESP 1 000 million (€ 6 010 121). Against this background, it has been ascertained that possibly fraudulent use was made of Community funds managed by the Confederation as subsidies from the Galician Government, intended to pay for training courses. These funds were used to pay the Confederation’s own running costs. Between 1996 and 2000, the Confederation received ESP 3 569 million (€ 21 450 122) from the Galician Government, largely compris- ing Community monies. What steps is the Commission taking vis-à-vis the Galician Government, which was responsible for managing the Community funding, to investigate the possibility that the former Confederation President’s mismanagement may also have affected the ESF funded training courses?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2001)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the written reply it gave to his Oral Question H- 0258/01 during question time at Parliament’s April 2001 part-session (1).
On 4 April 2001 the Commission received information from Spain concerning funds which the Galician confederation of businessmen (Confederação de Emprésarios de Galiza CEG) received from the Xunta de Galicia (Galician Government), and on checks carried out. However, Spain has yet to complete its report in order to allow any irregularities to be identified. Spain should shortly be able to forward to the Commission the conclusions of checks currently being carried out, which will allow it to take the appropriate measures.
No notification of irregularities relating to this case has as yet been received from Spain. However, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has indicated that on 29 March 2001 it opened an investigation to assist the Spanish authorities (Fiscalia especial para la represión de los delitos económicos relacionados con la corrupción).
(1) Written reply, 3.4.2001. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/103
(2001/C 340 E/118) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0827/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Publication of limits on residues by the fifteen EU Member States
On 30 March 2000, John McCartin, MEP, tabled a written question to the Commission concerning ‘maximum permissible residue limits and residue surveillance policy’ (E-1114/00 (1)). On the basis of data provided by the pharmaceutical industry, the CVMP in London determines maximum permissible residues for the active ingredients of veterinary medicines destined for use in food-producing animals.
The fifteen EU Member States are required by law to submit their food-residue monitoring programmes for the coming year and the results for the previous year to the Commission. The results indicate the incidence of residues from veterinary medicines in food samples from the European Union.
Only one EU Member State the United Kingdom publishes such detailed results every three months. The other Member States fail to comply or else publish incomplete information, in some cases on the Internet. Yet complete and transparent publication of such residue results by all EU Member States could promote consumer confidence.
Can the Council confirm that only one EU Member State the United Kingdom publishes a detailed overview of residues of veterinary medicines detected in food samples every three months? If not, do other EU Member States similarly publish (at the same intervals and in the same degree of detail) the quantities of residues detected in food samples?
(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 77.
Reply
(16 July 2001)
The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the Treaty entrusted the Commission with ensuring that Community regulations are applied. The Commission alone, therefore, is in a position to confirm the information he has given.
The Council would, moreover, draw attention to the reply given by the Commission on 29 May 2000 to Mr McCartin’s question, containing useful information in the fields referred to by the Honourable Member.
(2001/C 340 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0829/01 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission
(20 March 2001)
Subject: Research into and further development of BSE tests
From 1 April 2001 BSE tests are to be compulsory throughout Europe for beef cattle. The purpose of these extensive texts is to ascertain the degree of BSE contamination and restore consumer confidence.
Essential requirements here are sound procedures for collecting evidence and solid knowhow derived from studies into the epidemiology of the disease. However, no test has so far been able to identify all BSE- infected cattle, and mention is consistently made of a degree of residual uncertainty that also remains in the event of a negative test result. C 340 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
This prompts the following questions:
Has research been commissioned by the Commission into the development of BSE tests or the further development of the tests used to date?
If so, what financial resources are used to support such research and from what sources are the funds made available?
Are there plans in the relevant Directorate-General to fix research priorities? If so, what are these priorities?
Are the research units interconnected? If not, why not? If so, how are research findings coordinated?
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(31 May 2001)
The development of diagnostic tests in animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSEs) has been one of the major priorities in the European Action Plan on TSE adopted by the Council and the Parliament in November 1996 and implemented by three specific calls for proposals involving the Biomed, Biotech and Fair Research and technological development (RTD) Programmes of the Fourth framework programme (FP). In the Fifth FP research on TSE diagnosis is covered in different Key Actions of the Programme Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources.
A total of 9 projects are currently on-going on diagnosis of animal TSEs with a Community contribution of € 9,4 million plus two European networks amounting to € 3,1 million.
Following a request from the Research Council of 16 November 2000 an expert group on TSE Research has been established. This group has examined the status of TSE research across Europe and has identified priorities for research. These priorities may form the basis for a special call for proposals on TSE research this year. Research leading to the development of tests for TSEs may be among these priorities.
The co-ordinators of the research projects meet on a regular basis to exchange experience and results. The Commission is also taking the leadership in organising TSE research co-ordinators meetings, in order to assess the advancement of research and to assure that information is well disseminated. Moreover, the institutional partnerships established through the different types of research projects, such as shared cost, concerted actions and thematic networks, do promote and strengthen the necessary interconnections between research units.
The results generated through the research projects are transmitted to relevant Commission services such as Directorate general (DG) Health and Consumer Protection (SANCO) for eventual consideration by the Scientific Steering Committee.
Since 1998, the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) has evaluated and validated tests for the detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) infection in central nervous tissues of slaughtered animals as well for the analysis of feed and food, especially in respect to the presence of meat and bone meal in animal feed, or risk material in food.
Acting as the Commission’s reference centre, the JRC works on behalf of DG SANCO and in collaboration with leading Community expert institutes. Two JRC Institutes are engaged in this research, namely the Institute for Reference Materials and Measurement (IRMM) in Geel, Belgium, which validates tests for BSE infection and produces testing samples and reference materials, and the Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (IHCP) in Ispra, Italy, which concentrates on the quality control of animal feed and the detection of risk material in food. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/105
(2001/C 340 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0833/01
by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(20 March 2001)
Subject: Safety standards on passenger ships
1. Is the Commission satisfied with the current state of implementation and application in the Member States, and in Greece in particular of existing legislative requirements for safety standards on passenger ships?
2. What measures does the Commission intend to take in order to ensure that its forthcoming proposal on maritime safety for passengers will be swiftly and effectively implemented and applied?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(31 May 2001)
Over the last decade, the Community has adopted a number of important measures relating to the safety of passenger vessels and of their passengers. More specifically, the following measures, which establish operational and technical standards for roll on, roll off (ro-ro) ferry and high speed crafts operating in the Community, are presently in force: Council Regulation (EC) 3051/95 of 8 December 1995 on the safety management of ro-ro passenger ferries (1), Council Directive 1998/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (2), Council Directive 1998/41/EC of 18 June 1998, on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships operating to or from ports of the Member States (3) and Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high speed passenger craft services (4).
In relation to the application of the above instruments, the Commission has to recognise that some problems still exist. Therefore the Commission has initiated legal proceedings against a number of Member States in cases of non-communication of the national transposition measures and of non-compliance with the Community requirements laid down therein. Since the Honourable Member expressed particular concern about Greece the Commission can confirm that with the exception of Directive 1999/35/EC, which had a transposition deadline of 1 December 2000, all other instruments have been fully transposed by Greece.
Indeed, according to the Working Programme for this year, the Commission will present towards the end of 2001 its new proposal for higher safety standards in the field of passenger vessels. The Commission will seek to co-operate closely with the Council Presidency to give this proposal the high priority it deserves.
The Commission wishes also to stress the relevance of its recent proposal for the establishment of a European Maritime Safety Agency (5), which will have among its tasks to assist the Commission in the control of the application of maritime safety legislation by Member States. With the establishment of this Agency, the effective application of existing and future instruments on the safety of passenger vessels will be monitored much more closely than is presently possible.
(1) OJ L 320, 30.12.1995. (2) OJ L 144, 15.5.1998. (3) OJ L 188, 2.7.1998. (4) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999. (5) COM(2000) 802 final. C 340 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0834/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Council
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Organised environmental crime in European countries
Criminal organisations which harm the environment (the ‘eco-mafia’) have become excessively powerful in many European countries, including Italy. This ‘eco-Mafia’ makes billions by illegally disposing of highly toxic waste which then becomes an ecological time-bomb, destroying the health not only of the current population but of future generations, who will be irredeemably condemned by polluted water, soil and air.
Examples of such activities were recently shown on Italian public television channels. Moreover, members of the city council and the decentralised local authority of Milan have recently submitted an alarming complaint concerning the risk of leakage of dioxins contained in drums illegally buried deep underground, close to the water-table, in the area earmarked for the construction of Milan’s new purification plant. This new plant has been approved by the EU, which has already called for the work to begin.
Given that construction of the purification plant has become urgent and
that the ‘eco-Mafia’ has enormous capacities to thwart checks of any kind,
Can the Council state:
1. whether it plans to take action in support of Milan, so that the decontamination can be carried out as carefully as possible, enabling an immediate start to be made on the construction of the purification plant;
2. whether or not it considers it necessary to set up a task-force, in which all the Member States participate, to identify and decontaminate illegal dumps of toxic waste and to take legal action, both in individual countries and at Community level, against the various criminal organisations which harm the environment, making use of Interpol and public health and environmental organisations?
Reply
(16 July 2001)
The Council fully shares the concerns voiced by the Honourable Member regarding the need to ensure that toxic waste is disposed of in compliance with the regulations in force, so as to avoid accidents like that which occurred at Seveso.
The Council would nevertheless point out that it is the Commission which is responsible for administering aid allocated in that context. The Honourable Member is therefore invited to contact the Commission with regard to the safety and efficiency of the work to be carried out.
For the rest, it will be for the competent national authorities to seek specialist legal and technical advice as they see fit.
(2001/C 340 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0851/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(22 March 2001)
Subject: Budget positions of eurozone members
Will the Commission estimate, on the basis of the econometric models available to it, the impact on eurozone interest rates of a one percentage point tightening or loosening in the structural (cyclically adjusted) budget position of each of the eurozone members? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/107
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2001)
The Commission has not estimated the impact on eurozone interest rates of changes in the structural budgetary positions of each of the eurozone members.
In the Commission’s economic model, permanent changes in government debt crowd-out private expenditure and drive up real interest rates in the long term. The degree to which interest rates rise depends crucially on the interest sensitivity of consumption. There is no consensus in the literature on the effect of public debt on interest rates and empirical studies send conflicting signals. Evidence from the literature testing for Ricardian Equivalence is mixed. Some studies have found support for the notion that Ricardian Equivalence describes the data quite well and find no correlation between public debt and interest rates. However, Tanzi and Chalk (1), looking at the Community panel as a group, find that for the period 1970-1998 a 10 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) increase in the average Community debt- GDP ratio leads to an increase in real interest rates by 0,6 percentage points. The existence of an impact of debt on interest rates at the Community level seems to suggest that it is changes in the debt in the region as a whole that are of more relevance for interest rates than debt of individual countries. However, the size of the effect they find for the 1980-1998 subsample is much smaller, at 0,1 percentage points.
Simulations with the Commission’s economic model, in which Ricardian Equivalence does not fully hold in the long run, suggest that a permanent increase in the debt to GDP ratio of 10 percentage points can raise real interest rates in the long term by between 0,2 and 0,3 percentage points.
(1) V. Tanzi and N. Chalk, ‘Impact of Large Public Debt on Growth: a Discussion of Potential Channels’, EE R & S No 2, 2000.
(2001/C 340 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0853/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(22 March 2001)
Subject: Fiscal policy in the Member States
Does the Commission consider that there are any financial circumstances in which a Member State government might legitimately pursue a pro-cyclical fiscal policy? If so, what are they?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(13 June 2001)
The economic policy framework set up by the Maastricht Treaty and complemented by the Stability and Growth Pact requires that Member States avoid excessive deficits and reach budgetary positions close to balance or in surplus over the medium term. The co-ordination of economic policies takes, among others, the form of a set of Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPG), which must be implemented by the Member States. Concerning the issue of pro-cyclical fiscal policy, the BEPG 2000 specify that ‘given expected output growth above the potential rate, a pro-cyclical stance of budgetary policy should be avoided.’
Besides amplifying output fluctuations, implementing a pro-cyclical fiscal policy in the upper part of the cycle could also imply a pro-cyclical tightening in slowdowns, especially for Member States with too high a deficit and which risk breaching the 3 % reference level. In this case, the EC Treaty foresees that a Member State could be urged by the Council to improve its budgetary position, which would result in a pro-cyclical stance. This clause represent a deterrent to prevent bad fiscal behaviour and the pro-cyclical effects are considered to be less critical than achieving sound budgetary positions. C 340 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Nevertheless, exceptions to the guidelines to avoid pro-cyclical fiscal policy can be accepted when the temporary increase in the deficit is due to a major tax reform (for example in Germany) provided that is does not imply a risk of breaching the reference value for deficit levels and does not exacerbates inflationary pressures.
(2001/C 340 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0856/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(22 March 2001)
Subject: Redeployment of staff
Will the Commission state what percentage of its total staff complement has been redeployed from one directorate-general to another in each of the last ten years? (In other words, express the total of net reductions in the complement of any DG in each year as a percentage of the total staff complement).
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2001)
It is not possible for the Commission to provide a detailed answer for all services over the last 10 years in the form sought by the Honourable Member. This is because both the structure of services and the assignment of tasks to services have undergone so many modifications that attempts to quantify changes would not really be meaningful, or a justifiable use of time.
The scale of change has been particularly marked in the case of activities that have, or have had, high priority and rapid growth. In 1991, for example, all external relations were handled by two services the Directorate General for External Economic Relations and the Directorate General for Development. During the subsequent 10 years, substantial numbers of personnel have been shifted to and between Directorates General dealing with external relations both as a result of internal redeployment and because of fresh allocations. In 2001, the prime services dealing with external relations are the Directorate General for Trade, the Directorate General for External Relations, the Europe Aid Office For Cooperation, the Directorate General for Development, the Directorate General for Enlargement and the European Community’s Humanitarian Office (ECHO). When the number and structure of services have changed so much it is clearly not possible to give percentages by service.
In its Reform Strategy White Paper (1) the Commission has proposed more sophisticated mechanisms for Strategic Planning and Activity-Based Budgeting (Actions 12-16). These changes will begin to be implemented, on schedule, at the end of this year and, inter alia, they will result in an even more active policy of resource management including staff redeployments in the future.
Against that background, the most relevant information that is currently available in response to the Honourable Member’s question is that:
re-assignments of staff to other services have generally been made in order to increase resources in priority areas and to decrease staff where activities are reduced or ended. In recent times, the Commission has intensified efforts to allocate staff in ways that reflect changing priorities more closely,
amongst the consequences of that were decisions of the new Commission in September 1999 which resulted in internal redeployment of some 1500 persons or 8 % of Commission staff. In addition, in 2000 the Commission conducted a Peer Group review of resources and priorities and that led, or will lead, to a total of 547 redeployments of personnel to priority areas of the Commission’s work in 2001 and 2002. Details of these changes were given in the letter of proposed amendments to the Budget presented by the Commission to Parliament and Council on 11 September 2000.
(1) COM(2000) 200 final. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/109
(2001/C 340 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0863/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (22 March 2001)
Subject: Slaughterhouse inspections
Will the Commission indicate with respect to each Member State the charge to slaughterhouses for inspections carried out under the Fresh Meat Directive, noting, for example, whether the charge is a flat rate for the inspector’s time or a charge per animal slaughtered?
Is the Commission considering infringement proceedings against any EU country for failing to levy charges?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (11 June 2001)
The Commission does not currently have an overview of the charges to slaughterhouses in each Member State for inspections carried out under Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat (1). The Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office is conducting a survey on the subject of the financing of veterinary controls within the Community. This survey has, however, not yet been completed.
Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985, on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultry meat (2), as last amended by Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 (3), lays down rules for these charges.
The Commission has initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty against all Member States which have not adopted the national measures necessary to ensure transposition of the Directive in question.
At the moment, infringement proceedings are still pending in respect of transposition delays in Germany, Greece and Ireland.
(1) OJ B 121, 29.7.1964. (2) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985. (3) OJ L 162, 1.7.1996.
(2001/C 340 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0866/01 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 March 2001)
Subject: State aid Ireland Public broadcasting
On 13 April 2000, I raised a question regarding a State aid complaint made against the Irish Government in March 1999 in respect of the payment of a television licence fee to RTE, the public service broadcaster. In a letter of reply dated 19 September 2000, the Commissioner responsible indicated that its services ‘have performed a preliminary assessment of it, concluding that it is, prima facie, grounded and deserves further in-depth analysis’. What progress, if any, has been made in respect of this important complaint? Does the Commission believe it is satisfactory for two years to have elapsed since the complaint was lodged and no decision to have emerged from the Commission?
Secondly, RTE, the public service broadcaster, has made an application for an increase of 71 % in the current licence fee. The Minister responsible for broadcasting has indicated that a recommendation on this application will be brought before the Irish Government ‘soon’. Is the Commission aware that such an increase has been applied for? Without pre-judging whether or not the Commission believes the licence fee or any proposed increase thereto constitutes respectively a justifiable State aid or justifiable altered State aid, respectively, does it believe it appropriate that any proposal to increase the fee should be notified to C 340 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
the Commission, as required under the Treaty’s State aid rules? Does the Commission believe that any decision by the Irish Government to approve such an increase should be postponed until such time as the Commission has had the opportunity to examine the proposal and taken a decision to authorise a proportionate increase, if that were found to be consistent with Treaty rules?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(18 June 2001)
As pointed out by the Honourable Member, the Member of the Commission responsible for Competition indicated in 2000 that the Commission concluded that the complaint lodged against the payment of a television licence fee to RTE deserved further in-depth analysis.
Public service broadcasting is a very complex area where the Commission has to reach a balanced solution that will guarantee both the Member State’s right to provide public service broadcasting and the right of private operators to fair competition. In order to ensure certainty for all operators the Commission is actively working on a draft of a Commission Communication, which will hopefully be presented soon. The Communication will set out the principles the Commission will adhere to in applying Articles 87, 88 and Article 86 (ex Articles 92, 93 and 90), paragraph 2 of the EC Treaty to state funding of public service broadcasting. This will clarify the Commission’s policy in this highly complex area, allowing an assessment of the cases in full transparency.
With a view to assuring an even handed approach, priority has been given to preparing this Communication and deepen the case analysis in a comparative perspective. The analysis of complaints in this field, including the complaint about the licence fee to RTE, will be finalised after the adoption of the Communication.
The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for the information on the application of RTE for an increase of 71 % in the current licence fee. The Commission is closely following these developments. With regard to the questions on the obligation to notify the Commission of an increase in the licence fee, the Commission would like to refer to Article 88(3) EC where the obligations are laid down for Member States to notify the Commission of new aid or alterations to existing aid. In this respect the Commission would also like to draw attention to the Judgement of the Court of Justice in the Namur-Ducroire case (1). In this case the Court ruled that ‘Article 93(3) [now article 88(3)] of the Treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that enlargement, in circumstances such as those described in the referred judgement, of the field of activity of a public establishment which is in receipt of aid granted by the State under legislation predating the entry into force of the Treaty cannot, where it does not affect the system of aid established by that legislation, be regarded as constituting the granting or alteration of aid which is subject to the obligation of prior notification and the prohibition on putting aid into effect laid down by that provision’.
(1) Judgement of the Court of Justice of 9 August 1994 in case C-44/93 (Namur-Ducroire) Jurisprudence 1994, p. I-3829.
(2001/C 340 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0869/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(22 March 2001)
Subject: Potato import quota
The agreement between the EU and the Kingdom of Morocco sets at 120 000 tonnes the quota of potatoes exported to the EU that is subject to zero duty (i.e. tariff exemption).
Intrastat data cannot be accessed in real time, and thus it is impossible to tell whether the quota has been exceeded and the corresponding duty therefore applied. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/111
In view of the aforementioned facts, what procedures does the Commission have in place to ensure the real-time monitoring of imports of potatoes and other products which arrive from third countries on given dates and enjoy tariff exemption under preferential agreements?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2001)
As indicated by the Honourable Member, the Association Agreement between the Community and the Kingdom of Morocco provides in its Protocol 1 for import into the Community of new potatoes originating from Morocco from 1 December to 30 April with exemption of customs duties. This tariff concession applies within the limit of a tariff quota of 120 000 tonnes.
Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 of 9 April 2001 (1) providing for the management of Community tariff quotas and of reference quantities for products eligible for preferences by virtue of agreements with certain Mediterranean countries and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 1981/94 (2) and (EC) No 934/95 (3) provides that this tariff quota is to be managed by the Commission following the chronological order of dates of acceptance of customs declarations. This system of management of tariff quotas is defined within Articles 308a to 308c of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of the Community Customs Code.
According to these provisions, Member States communicate to the Commission all valid requests to benefit from a tariff quota, taking into account the data from each to the customs presented declaration for release for free circulation. To the extent that the balance of the relevant tariff quota so permits, the Commission grants an allocation of the requested quantity. Priority is established in accordance with the chronological order of dates of acceptance of declarations for release for free circulation. If the quantities requested for drawing from a tariff quota are greater than the balance available, the allocation is made on a pro rata basis with respect to the requested quantities. So, the Commission ensures that the initial volume of the tariff quota is not exceeded.
With a view to greater transparency, the Commission’s database for management of tariff quotas is, as a part of the Tariff Data Dissemination System, available on the Europa server of the Commission at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/dds/es/home.htm.
It displays the balances of each tariff quota applicable in the present year and in the past two years. This information is daily updated as a result of the tariff quota allocations which take place every working day.
(1) OJ L 109, 19.4.2001. (2) Council Regulation No 1981/94 of 25 July 1994 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for certain products originating in Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Malta, Morocco, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Tunisia and Turkey, and providing detailed rules for extending and adapting these tariff quotas (OJ L 199, 2.8.1994). (3) Council Regulation (EC) No 934/95 of 10 April 1995 establishing a Community statistical surveillance in the framework of reference quantities for a certain number of products originating in Cyprus, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Tunisia, Syria, Malta, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (OJ L 96, 28.4.1995).
(2001/C 340 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0872/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(22 March 2001)
Subject: European works councils
On 17 May 1996 the Samu Auchan group, which is based in France, has operations in Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, and Portugal, and employs some 37 000 people, concluded an agreement with a number of French trade unions with a view to drawing up the ‘Auchan European Works Council Agreement’, which was deposited with the Lannoy Industrial Tribunal (conseil des prud’hommes) on 28 May 1996. C 340 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Under this agreement, which the group management sent to the employees, employee representatives from the different countries have been invited to serve on the European Works Council.
Point 2.2 of the agreement stipulates that the members of the council must be appointed by the most representative staff organisation in each company (or the central works council, where this exists) in accordance with procedures to be determined by each organisation on the basis of an agreement between the management and the representatives of the trade unions or the staff representatives, if the company staff is not unionised. This is the provision which the management has invoked to reject one of the official representatives of the Portuguese employees and have her replaced by a substitute.
Given that the agreement was laid down solely by French management and employee representatives, does the Commission consider it right for it to be imposed on companies based in other Member States without observing their national laws and practices governing the appointment or election of employee representatives?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2001)
The agreement signed on 17 May 1996 establishing a European Works Council within the Samu Auchan group has to be considered as a so-called pre-Directive agreement ruled by Article 13 of Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (1).
Article 13 of the Directive provides that Community-scale groups of undertakings, which, by the date of transposition of the Directive, have concluded agreements providing for transnational information and consultation of employees and covering the entire workforce, shall not be subject to the obligations arising from the Directive.
The rationale for this provision is, that the Community legislator wished to reserve special treatment and flexibility for those undertakings and groups of undertakings which had already anticipated the obligations arising from the Directive and at the same time to maintain the voluntary and consensual approach that is intended to be the hallmark of its application. This means that no legal rules prevail on what the parties agreed and that the content of a valid Article 13 agreement cannot be scrutinised other that in relation to that Article and the relevant national provisions implementing that Article.
Article 13 of Directive 94/45/EC has been implemented into French law by Article 5 of Law No 96-985 of 12 November 1996 on the information and consultation of employees in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings and on development of collective bargaining (2).
Given that the above-mentioned agreement within the Samu Auchan group is ruled by French law and that France has properly incorporated into its national law the provisions of the above-mentioned Directive, the Commission wants to underline, that any issues arising in this area are a matter for the national industrial relations’ procedures, and/or the national courts in the first instance.
(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994. (2) ‘The Community-scale undertakings and groups of undertakings which already have, on the date this law is enacted, an agreement covering the entire workforce and providing for bodies or for other forms of information, exchange of views and dialogue at Community level, shall not be subject to the obligations arising from Chapter X of title III of volume IV of the Labour Code as worded as a result of this law. This shall also be the case where such agreements run out and the signatory parties decide to renew them. However, the provisions in Article L 439-24 of the Labour Code in the drafting resulting from this law, shall apply to the groups of undertakings referred to in the first paragraph, which have established bodies for information, exchange of views and dialogue at Community level.’(unofficial translation). 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/113
(2001/C 340 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0873/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(22 March 2001)
Subject: Incineration of hazardous industrial waste at the Outão cement works in the Arrábida Nature Park
People living in the Setúbal area have lodged a protest with the Commission against the Portuguese Government’s intention of setting up a toxic and hazardous waste coincineration plant at the Outão cement works in the Arrábida Nature Park (Complaint No 98/5064).
The site concerned is a protected area and of outstanding interest from the historical, landscape, cultural, social, and tourism point of view.
According to the signatories sponsoring the protest, an environmental impact assessment has never been encouraged, a failure which infringes Directives 85/337/EEC (1) and 97/11/EC (2).
The Portuguese Government considers an environmental impact assessment by the private company to be sufficient. The cement industry consortium (Scoreco) has submitted such an assessment, thus ruling out an environmental impact assessment backed and monitored by bodies whose interests might be affected, despite the fact that the latter form of assessment is required in the light of the correct interpretation of the above Community directives. Portugal, moreover, has recently accepted that interpretation by issuing Order in Council No 74/2001 of 26 February 2001, repealing Article 46(3) of Order in Council No 69/ 2000 of 3 May 2000, which was based on a narrow interpretation of the directives.
What attitude is the Commission taking to the complaint referred to above (incineration of hazardous industrial waste at the Outão cement works in the Arrábida Nature Park)?
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(10 May 2001)
The Honourable Member is referring to complaint 98/5064 presented by a group of citizens in response to the plan to set up a hazardous waste coincineration plant at the Outão cement works in the Arrábida national park. As the Honourable Member points out, the complainants maintain that the project was not made subject to an environmental impact assessment and that this infringes the provisions of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997.
As explained to the complainants when the complaint was being investigated and, more recently, in an additional reply to the petition they presented to Parliament (petition No 1072/98), the Commission, having examined all aspects of the project, does not consider that it contravenes the applicable provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC, nor those of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).
Although, as pointed out in the written question, the impact studies were done by a company chosen by the developer Scoreco, this does not mean they did not meet the requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC. The Directive does not in fact state that impact studies cannot be commissioned by a project’s promoter. On the contrary, under Article 5 it is for the developer to transmit the information required for assessment, including information on the effects the project is likely to have on the environment, the measures envisaged to minimise these effects and a non-technical summary of this information.
With regard to the allegations in the written question on Decree-Law 74/2001, which repealed the provision of Decree-Law 69/2000 excluding from its application projects for which the impact studies had been submitted to the competent authority before its entry into force, we would point out that these texts transpose Directive 97/11/EC into Portuguese law and that the said Directive is not applicable to the project in question. C 340 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Under Article 3(2) of Directive 97/11/EC, projects for which a request for consent is submitted to a competent authority before 14 March 1999 shall be governed by the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments, not the amended version. The project in question was submitted to the competent authority before 14 March 1999.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2001/C 340 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0876/01 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission
(27 March 2001)
Subject: Food aid to Russia
The Court of Auditors Special Report (1) concerning the programme to supply agriculture products to the Russian Federation reveals the difficulties encountered in supplying goods to Russia.
1. In any future food aid schemes will the Commission refrain from supplying it to countries of current commercial interest to Community exporters?
2. Does experience with the state-to-state agreement on food aid to Russia give the Commission cause to reassess exporter liability for that country, see previous Questions E-0979/00 (2) and E-2792/00 (3)?
(1) OJ C 25, 25.1.2001. (2) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 6. (3) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 177.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2001)
1. The Community policy on Food Aid and Food Aid management is oriented towards the improvement of food security of developing countries.
The policy, in line with the Food Aid Convention and its Code of Conduct, is carefully oriented to avoid any adverse effects on the production and commercial import structures of the recipient countries.
There have been rare exceptions to those principles, made only in a few urgent cases in countries going through economic crisis for which an immediate (and temporary) response was deemed necessary.
As to the future, on the basis of an assessment of the food aid/food security instrument, the Commission is currently drafting a Communication on food aid and food security which will reiterate the principles mentioned above.
2. Written Question E-979/00 by the Honourable Member (1) relates to the specific matter of re- importation of goods eligible for refund. The Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2792/00 (2) also relates to the re-importation of goods eligible for refund.
Special Report No 18/2000 by the Court of Auditors concerning the programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation does not imply that any of these goods were re-imported into the Community. Moreover, supplies under the programme are not eligible for export refunds (Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of 17 December 1998 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (3)). 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/115
To simplify the task of exporters, the Commission laid down special measures for the export to Russia of goods eligible for refunds in a Decision of 28 July 1999, renewed by a Decision of 21 June 2000.
(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001. (2) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001. (3) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998.
(2001/C 340 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0881/01 by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission
(27 March 2001)
Subject: Laser pointer pens
I understand that, in the United States, lasers are classified in a slightly different way from in the EU. The American national standard for lasers has six classes, and the method of allocation is different from the European standard. This has caused some problems with labelling. In some cases, American class 2 lasers would be classified as class IIIA using the European standard. Laser pointers usually contain class II lasers which give a suitable range and power for their intended purpose. Importing into the EU pointers classified and labelled in accordance with the American standard means that they may be classified incorrectly and consequently mislabelled. What measures have been taken, or are to be taken, to ensure that pens imported into the EU are labelled in accordance with the EU standard?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(18 June 2001)
The Commission is currently carrying out a technical examination of the problem mentioned by the Honourable Member and will communicate to her the results of its research within the next few weeks. The Commission will also raise this specific issue in the Emergency Committee (under the General Product Safety Directive, Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 (1)) on 22 June 2001, in order to have Member States experiences.
(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
(2001/C 340 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0882/01 by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission
(27 March 2001)
Subject: Complaint regarding the construction of an industrial estate in a special bird protection area in San Fernando de Henares (Spain)
The El Molino cultural association has issued a complaint regarding the go-ahead given by San Fernando de Henares town council (Community of Madrid, Spain) for a project to build an industrial estate on a site set aside as ZEPA (special bird protection area) 142. The partial encroachment into and alterations to the area would be in breach of the European legislation in force, not least Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1)on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
According to the local media, the complaint was lodged with the Commission on 2 September 2000, and in a written reply dated 16 January 2001 the Commission reportedly stated that the complaint was admissible and that a procedure was being launched to ascertain and investigate the facts referred to in the complaint (Crónica de Madrid, 12 February 2001). C 340 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
In addition, the socialist group on San Fernando de Henares council has approached the mayor and council leader with an urgent request for proper clarification of this matter, which has naturally provoked legitimate concern and alarm amongst the local residents.
What measures has the Commission adopted with regard to this matter?
What is the state of play as regards the aforementioned procedure to ascertain and investigate the facts referred to in the complaint?
What decisions will the Commission adopt, where appropriate, to ensure that, in keeping with the principle of environmental conservation, the ZEPA 142 site enjoys protection from any arbitrary measures adopted by the aforementioned authorities in breach of the European legislation in force?
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(8 May 2001)
The area in question is indeed special protection area (SPA) 142 for birds, classified in accordance with Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). It is also a site of Community importance (SCI 3110006) under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
On the basis of the information received from the complainant, the Commission recently asked the Spanish authorities for their comments on the reported situation. It also asked them to send it a copy of the impact statement relating to the project in question, along with a detailed description of the types of habitat to be found in the area concerned.
The Commission will, in any event, ensure compliance with the Community law applicable to this case.
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2001/C 340 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0886/01 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(27 March 2001)
Subject: Data on quantities of depleted uranium stocks held in each EU Member State
Will the Commission publish up-to-date data on quantities of depleted uranium stocks held in each EU Member State?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2001)
The Commission will publish a table showing the quantities of depleted uranium stocks held in the Community in a report on the operation of the Euratom Safeguards Office, which will be presented in due course. The Commission is, however, not entitled to provide information on the stocks held per Member State without their prior authorisation. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/117
(2001/C 340 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0890/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 March 2001)
Subject: Socrates programme for the years 2000 to 2006
The lack of funds to meet demand in full, the obstacles to student and teacher mobility, the difficulties in securing recognition of studies completed in another country, and the disparities in the grants awarded to students in the individual participating countries are some of the weaknesses acknowledged by the Commission in a report published a few weeks ago on implementation of the Socrates programme between 1995 and 1999.
Could the Commission specify the obstacles currently in the way of student and teacher mobility, notwithstanding the fact that, between 1995 and 1999, approximately 460 000 students were awarded a grant under the Erasmus scheme, which forms part and parcel of the Socrates programme?
As regards the period from 2000 to 2006, how will and Commission overcome the above difficulties and put right the slowness of the procedures, the inordinate time taken for payment, and the exaggerated emphasis on the financial aspects of projects at the expense of the educational aspects? Can it say what practical steps it will take to resolve the problems with the recognition of studies completed in other countries? Can it say why the grants awarded to students in the different countries are still grossly unequal, ranging from less than € 100 to over € 800 a month? What other measures is it drawing up at present with a view to achieving its target of enabling all European citizens to become proficient in two Community languages other than their mother tongue?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(1 June 2001)
The Erasmus mobility in Europe has existed since the academic year 1987/1988 and the number of mobile students is still increasing every year by approximately 10 %. In one year or two there will have been 1 million European students that have studied in another country in Europe. This developement has been made possible through the co-operation between Member States and Member State institutions and the Commission.
The evaluation report to which the Honourable Member refers, shows a positive global result of the first phase of Socrates. Within the framework of Erasmus, several measures have in the past been introduced which aim at decreasing barriers to mobility and the Commission will continue to develop these, for instance the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) which facilitates recognition, Intensive Language Preparation Courses and other language preparation measures which contribute to counteract the barrier of language skills and information campaigns such as ‘Socrates on the move’.
Outside the programme, there are currently several initiatives supported by the Commission which addresses the issues raised by the Honourable Member: The introduction of a Diploma supplement will contribute to decrease the barriers to academic recognition. The Bologna process (Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education, convened in Bologna on the 19 June 1999), should ultimately lead to making measures such as ECTS and Diploma supplement more widespread. Finally, the proposed ‘Recommendation on Mobility’ (to be agreed at the Education Council meeting) addresses many of the issues at stake in relation to obstacles to mobility for students and teachers.
The Decision on the second phase of the Socrates programme establishes a decentralisation of the Erasmus mobility scheme. This implies that each of the participating countries manage the Erasmus mobility funds that has been allocated to them. The level of the grant thus depends on the national policy and the supplementary funding available at national level. C 340 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0902/01 by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 March 2001)
Subject: Take-overs of American companies
ASML, a European manufacturer of microchip machines, has for months been seeking authorisation from the competent US authorities and the US administration to take over the American company SVG. It is thought that ASML’s American competitor Ultratech Stepper is trying to delay this take-over by means of political pressure on Congress.
How is Commissioner Lamy involved in talks with the US authorities about this take-over?
What pressure can Commissioner Lamy bring to bear, or has he brought to bear, on US trade envoy Bob Zoelick to ensure that this take-over, including that of Tinsley Laboratories, can be completed as quickly as possible and to prevent any further delay or imposition of conditions by Congress?
In his talks with the new US administration in the context of the new WTO trade round, to what extent will the Commissioner raise the issue of the obstacles created by Congress when European ICT firms seek to take over American businesses? Are there any other ways in which the Commissioner could expedite this take-over?
Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission
(23 April 2001)
At the request of ASM Lithography and of the Dutch authorities in Washington, the Member of the Commission responsible for trade, raised with both United States Trade Representative Zoellick and United States Secretary of Treasury O’Neill the investigation under the Exon-Florio national security legislation of the proposed acquisition of Silicon Valley Group by ASM Lithography.
In his contacts with the American authorities, the Commission has made it clear that ASM Lithography is willing to address any reasonable national security concern, but that commercial or industrial policy questions should not play a role in consideration of this case. Both Ambassador Zoellick and Secretary O’Neill promised to look into the question.
The Commission will continue to closely follow this matter with a view to ensuring that the rights of Community companies, in this case ASM Lithography, are fully respected.
(2001/C 340 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0903/01 by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Council
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Reception given to President Mugabe of Zimbabwe
Robert Mugabe’s violations of human rights have been well documented. We have all seen and heard the reports in the mass media of murders of farmers and opposition politicians. There are no grounds for regarding Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe as a democracy as the opposition is not allowed to operate freely and the rights of property have been set aside. Despite the devastating impact on the country’s economy, property belonging to its white minority is being systematically expropriated. Mugabe supporters are occupying farms by force and the government is giving them a share of the land seized.
However, on his trip around Europe, the red carpet was rolled out for Robert Mugabe and he met the Belgian Prime Minister, and was received by the French President at the Elysée. After his military 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/119
intervention in the Congo Robert Mugabe is regarded by some EU Member States as a negotiating partner rather than an autocrat with no respect for human rights. Representatives of the Council and Commission also met Robert Mugabe for talks.
What is the Council’s attitude towards Robert Mugabe and the situation in Zimbabwe? Does it intend to take specific action in the form of withdrawing aid in order to put pressure on the Mugabe regime, or does it intend to confine itself to talk?
Reply
(16 July 2001)
The Council considers Robert Mugabe as a legally elected president of an independent country, but already in May last year before the Parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe, it expressed deep concern at the breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe, the ongoing violence, loss of life, illegal occupation of property and the continuing political intimidation in the run up to the parliamentary elections.
During his recent visit to Europe, representatives of the Presidency on its own accord participated in a lunch with the Commission and President Mugabe, but representatives of the Council did not meet with President Mugabe for talks.
The General Affairs Council on 26/27 February 2001 had an exchange of views on Zimbabwe. It agreed to take the necessary steps to propose to the government of Zimbabwe a comprehensive and balanced dialogue. The Council also agreed to come back to this issue in due course.
The holding of a political dialogue with Zimbabwe under article 8 of the Cotonou agreement in line with the Council conclusions, was proposed to Zimbabwe and is still awaiting a formal response from the authorities. Under this dialogue the EU hopes that both parties will be able to promote a stable democratic political environment in Zimbabwe and thereby also contribute to peace, security and stability in the country. The EU wishes the dialogue to be comprehensive, balanced and deep and a forum for open and forthright exchanges of views. It must also be seen as an evolving process.
EU aid to Zimbabwe does not cover budget support anymore, it does not contribute with aid to the productive sectors, it has instead been refocused on the social sectors in order to protect human capital during these difficult years for Zimbabwe. Disbursement of aid has dropped over the last three years, but the Council has not discussed any withdrawal of aid to Zimbabwe.
The EU is of course also following the behaviour of Zimbabwe in the context of the application of the Lusaka cease-fire agreement and the ongoing troop withdrawals in the DRC.
(2001/C 340 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0906/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Workers’ health and safety
The Commission’s reply to my Question No E-0339/00 (1) on adequate controls by the Member States in compliance with Article 4(2) of framework Directive 89/391/EEC (2) on the improvement of the safety and health of workers states that: ‘If specific data should reach the Commission, showing that national administrations have failed in their obligations in this respect, the Commission would take appropriate action, notably by opening infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, if required by the results of the investigation of the specific case.’ C 340 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Since the problem is still acute, controls are still deficient and the Commission, according to its reply, has been collecting information on the matter since 20 March 2000 and has also received specific complaints, in the form of the complaint from the General Confederation of Greek Workers with reference number 00/4404, SAG2000 A/382828/2 and my Question No E-0014/00 (3):
1. When does the Commission intend to forward the information it has collected?
2. Why has it not opened infringement proceedings under Article 226 with the information on which the complaints are based or which it has collected itself?
(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 178. (2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1. (3) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 158.
Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(18 June 2001)
The Commission would point out that an issue as complex as the adequacy of the controls and supervision carried out by the Member States pursuant to Article 4(2) of framework Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work cannot be assessed without full, detailed information on the alleged dysfunction in the system of control and supervision.
As far as the specific situation in Greece is concerned, the Commission requested further information from the plaintiff following the complaint made by the General Confederation of Greek Workers. After receiving this information, the Commission also sent a letter to the Greek Government requesting information on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. Although a reminder letter on this matter has been sent to the Greek authorities, they have not yet provided the information requested by the Commission.
The information collected following the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-0339/00 (1) will be sent separately to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat of the Parliament directly.
(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000.
(2001/C 340 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0909/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Changes in Spanish legislation on the electricity industry
The Spanish Royal Decree Law 2/2001 of 2 February 2001 amends the wording of the Sixth Ttransitional Provision of the Electricity Industry Act. The object of the exercise is to enable the Spanish Government to delay the opening of the case relating to State aids to electricity companies in the form of costs of transition to competition (CTCs). The new wording removes the most serious flaw in the earlier rules, which established the entitlement to receive a sum of money irrespective of the trend in costs and the energy price. Spanish consumers had been paying the sum in question by means of a 4,5 % surcharge on the standard electricity rate, and the electricity companies have thus received some ESP 500 billion.
By altering the rule concerned, the Government has in effect accepted the Commission view, fully shared by Spanish consumers and the questioner, that CTCs have been regulated in such a way as to constitute, in principle, unnotified State aids.
The change may be purely cosmetic and designed to avert the proceedings because the many remaining dubious points in the rules are continuing to strengthen the position of the existing electricity companies, thus making it difficult for new firms to enter the market. For example, the present wording still grants the right to compensation, the amount of which will be determined annually by the Government without 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/121
regard to cost and market trends. Furthermore, the assets on which the entitlement to payment is based have been valued under a suspect system in which the results exceed the investment outlay. In the light of these and other matters (increase in the total amount by approximately ESP 100 billion, failure to spell out the payment method, etc.), the Commission ought to examine the new payment system to ascertain whether it might serve in any way to impede competition.
Does the Commission consider that the changes to the Spanish electricity legislation make it impossible to open the case concerning State aids in the form of costs of transition to competition? Why have the proceedings not yet been instituted?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(11 May 2001)
The Commission has not yet decided whether initiating proceedings under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 93) is justified in this case. It is currently studying the impact of the changes made by Royal Decree-Law No 2/2001 of 2 February 2001. It is also considering the consequences of the Court of Justice’s judgment of 13 March 2001 in Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra AG v. Schlesswag AG (1).
As the Honourable Member is aware, the problem of stranded costs in the electricity sector affects several Member States and poses complex and unusual problems as regards state aid. It is for this reason that the Commission feels it would be wise to wait for the above judgment before initiating proceedings in this case.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
(2001/C 340 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0911/01 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Cooperation in the construction of the third generation network
A heated debate is now going on about the mistakes which were made in the procedure for allocating the frequencies required for the third generation of wireless communication. However, the frequencies have now largely been allocated, and it is time to debate how the EU can remain involved in the development of the mobile Internet, and how we can meet the global challenges.
It is in the interest of the European consumer that it should be possible to construct the third generation wireless networks without placing an undue strain on the cluster of industries which make up the European telecommunications sector.
Mr Kaj-Erik Relander, managing director of the Finnish telecommunications operator Sonera, has spoken publicly about the cost savings which could be brought about in the EU Member States if cooperation in network construction and maintenance were to be permitted. However, Mr Relander says that cooperation requires the approval of the licensing authorities or regulators.
How does the Commission intend to bring its influence to bear so that the investments which the third generation requires can be made without an undue strain being placed on the European telecommuni- cations cluster and thus on the EU’s competitiveness?
Can the Commission put any pressure on the national authorities to take a positive attitude towards telecommunications operators’ efforts to construct networks jointly with other licence holders? C 340 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(8 June 2001)
On 20 March 2001, the Commission adopted a communication from the Commission to the Council, the Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regionsentitled ‘The Introduction of Third Generation Mobile Communications in the European Union: State of Play and the Way Forward.’ (1)
This Communication gives a brief analysis on the current state of deployment of third generation (3G) mobile communications network and services, and proposes a certain number of actions including facilitating the deployment of 3G networks under the current legal framework is examined. As part of this process, it is proposed to address inter alia the conditions to be met in order to ‘permit network infrastructure sharing, which the Commission considers in principle positively due to its potential economic gains, on the condition that the competition rules and the provisions of other relevant Community law are respected.’
The Commission has already taken the initiative to contact national regulatory authorities with a view to discussing the matter further. Furthermore, exchanges with industry aimed at clarifying the technical scope of network infrastructure sharing are being undertaken, in order to fully understand the regulatory implications. The Commission aims at establishing a consensus on the conditions under which network infrastructure sharing can be conceived, taking into account the existing legislation. Such a consensus would allow national regulatory authorities to take the necessary steps falling under their responsibility, while ensuring a co-ordinated Community approach overall.
(1) COM(2001) 141 final.
(2001/C 340 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0912/01 by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: The Leader programme in St Hubert (Belgium)
The Community has accepted the project submitted by the St Hubert (Belgium) Local Action Group, relating to the Val de Poi, for funding under the Leader programme.
This project is intended to contribute to the harmonious development of the valley and comprises general promotion measures, signposting of walks, making of a video, enhancement of the local heritage, creation of a job agency, and installation of showcases for local produce. It began in December 1999, has been operational since January 2000 and ends in June 2001. The EU’s financial participation amounts to BEF 18 million.
On the same site there are plans to build a massive sports complex costing BEF 662 million, an ‘Olympic valley’ for the training of high-level athletes in shooting, running, cycling and even equestrian events.
This project has been criticised by a number of politicians and associations because of the damage it risks causing to the environment, thus detracting from the valley’s attractiveness to tourists. It even seems that subsidies from Leader have been used for studies on this project which infringes the very spirit of the tourist project for which the Leader funds were intended.
Can the Commission:
confirm that a sports project is not eligible under the Leader programme,
say whether it is acceptable for projects subsidised under Leader to have a leverage effect on sports projects which damage the environment and detract from the value of the Val de Poix for tourism,
say whether it might not be advisable to investigate the use of European funds for this project and reclaim sums unduly paid? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/123
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(17 May 2001)
On 15 June 1994 the Commission, under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 (2), decided on the Leader II Community Initiative. On 19 June 1997 it approved the Leader II operational programme for the Objective 5(b) zones of the Wallonia Region. The Community assistance approved was € 3 318 466.
Leader II is to be implemented as close to the ground as possible, with maximum involvement of local and regional partners. This is why the Commission negotiates, in partnership with each Member State, the content of the programmes drawn up by the regional authorities. Local action groups are then invited to make their ‘rural innovation programme’ proposals for inclusion in the regional programme adopted. The selection of the LAGs is by a decision-taking partnership at regional level.
Chapter V Implementation of the Notice to Member States (3) for Leader II states that the Commission will no longer participate directly in project and recipient selection. Thus it has no information on the actual LAG projects within any operational programme.
This means that the Leader II Wallonia operational programme in the Commission’s possession does not allow it to confirm any financing of the ‘Olympic valley’ project. Sport-related projects are not automatically ineligible but Annex I to the Notice to Member States states that investments in infrastructure are ineligible except for very small-scale ones to be defined in partnership.
On environmental impact, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (4), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (5), covers infrastructure projects, including urban development works (Annex II, point 10b).
The Commission will ask the responsible authorities for more information on the Val de Poix project and any links it has with the ‘Olympic valley’ project. This will be forwarded to the Honourable Member with all speed.
(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988. (2) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. (3) OJ C 180, 1.7.1994. (4) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (5) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2001/C 340 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0919/01 by Rosa Díez González (PSE) and María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Implementation of the Annex to Decision 647/97 (Support for persons with HIV/AIDS and combating discrimination) in Spain
By means of a decree issued in March 2000, the Spanish Government considerably tightened up the conditions for granting invalidity status to AIDS sufferers. As a result, over one hundred of the 11 000 HIV-positive recipients of an invalidity pension have already lost their entitlement to it. C 340 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Prior to the decree’s entry into force, disability caused by AIDS was assessed solely on the basis of the number of CD4 cells in the immune system and the opportunistic infections caught by sufferers. Since March 2000 other factors have been taken into consideration, particularly the number of admissions to hospital. Prior to the advent of combination therapies, the CD4 count rarely improved. This meant that patients continued to be entitled to benefits since their degree of disability remained the same (1).
According to the Apoyo Positivo association, an AIDS support group, the decision to change the criteria for the recognition of disability and to include the requirement of a minimum number of admissions to hospital per year represents a de facto tightening up of the conditions of eligibility for the ESP 40 000 which are the sole income of many HIV-positive persons.
Given that the objectives of Decision 647/96/EC (2) adopting a programme of Community action on the prevention of AIDS and certain other communicable diseases (currently in the process of being revised) include ‘support for persons with HIV/AIDS and combating discrimination’ (Article 1(3)(D)) and ensuring that they ‘are not discriminated against in any way’ (Annex), would the Commission state whether:
it would not agree that the measures set out in the new decree adopted by the Spanish Government are contrary to the provisions of Decision 647/96/EC?
it is willing to contact the Spanish authorities with a view to looking into the specific issue of the change in criteria for the granting of assistance to HIV-positive persons?
(1) Under the current provisions, patients with a CD4 count of less than 200 (category C3) have a 65 % degree of disability and qualify for a pension. Conversely, patients with a CD4 count of over 500 (category C1) do not qualify for any benefits at all. (2) OJ L 95, 16.4.1996, p. 16.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(30 May 2001)
Decision No 647/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 March 1996 adopting a programme of Community action on the prevention of AIDS and certain other communicable diseases within the framework for action in the field of public health (1996 to 2000) (1), encourages and promotes activities aimed at avoiding discrimination against persons suffering from acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
Accordingly, the Commission supports relevant projects in this field providing a European added value. On the other hand, the treatment and the criteria for the recognition of disability due to any illness are dealt with at national level.
Consequently, the decision of the Spanish Government to change the criteria for the recognition of disability and to include the requirement of a minimum number of admissions to hospital per year is not contrary to the provisions of Decision No 647/96/EC. Therefore, the Commission does not intend to contact the Spanish authorities with a view to looking into this specific issue.
(1) OJ L 95, 16.4.1996.
(2001/C 340 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0922/01 by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Pedemontana Lombarda
In its ‘comprehensive transport plan’ the Italian Government has stated its intention of building the ‘Pedemontana Lombarda’ motorway to connect Varese to Como and Bergamo. The Lombardy adminis- tration supports this plan, and by means of the agreement of 13 March 2000 began a process of institutional negotiation with a view to establishing the project’s specifications and route. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/125
Both the government and the regional administration assume that this piece of infrastructure should be built by the concessionaire company Pedemontana Lombarda S.p.A. In fact, this company has been officially involved in all stages of the negotiation process.
However, it appears that the motorway concession in question was awarded to Pedemontana Lombarda S.p.A. without any invitation to tender being issued. The contract relating to the project was approved by ANAS (the National Roads Authority) on 29 May 1990, and subsequently confirmed by interministerial decree No 1524 of 31 August 1990 i.e. over a month after the deadline for the automatic entry into force of the obligation contained in European Directive 89/440/EEC (1)to award motorway concessions through restricted invitation to tender.
It should also be noted that:
although it is over ten years since it entered into force, no part of the contract has ever been implemented (2);
the route currently under discussion is very different to that which was contained in the contract (3).
In view of the above, can the Commission state:
1. Whether, under Community legislation, the concession awarded to Pedemontana Lombarda S.p.A. is unlawful?
2. Whether, therefore, Decree 1524/90 and subsequent legal documents relating to this award provide grounds for initiating European infringement proceedings;
3. Whether it does not consider that backing such a policy in favour of motorway concessionaire firms amounts to a negation of the European Union’s priority of rebalancing the share of different modes of transport between road and rail?
(1) OJ L 210, 21.7.1989, p. 1. (2) As not even one metre of motorway has been built so far, any dispute with the concessionaire can only be quantified in terms of the costs of the studies and designs completed to date (approximately ITL 10 billion, received from the State on a non-refundable basis). Currently, approximately ITL 240 billion is available for design, of which 100 billion was allocated to ANAS by the financial law for 2000. Disbursement of these funds would presumably lead to an immediate increase in the financial significance of the dispute. (3) The State Legal Advisory Office has expressed the opinion that the concession can be considered valid, since there has been no change to the place-names of the key points along the route i.e. Dalmine and the Gaggiolo pass to the north of Varese. In the option currently under discussion, however, the Gaggiolo pass is reached via a section of the Varese bypass which is not linked to the main motorway, as this leads to the airport of Malpensa, approximately 40 km from the pass itself.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(11 May 2001)
1. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member in his written question, the concession granted to Pedemontana Lombarda S.p.A. would not seem to be subject to the rules in Council Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989, amending Directive 71/305/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, which was required to be implemented no later than 19 July 1990. In its judgment of 5 October 2000 in case C-337/98, the Court of Justice affirmed the principle that, if an awarding authority decided to select a contractor without a prior invitation to tender, the applicable law would have to be determined by taking into account the point in time at which the relevant decision was taken (in this instance, 29 May 1990 at the latest). However, if the main terms of the contract had been changed subsequent to the conclusion of the original agreement, Council Directives 89/ 440/EEC and 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (1) could apply.
2. In any event, the Commission intends to ask the Italian authorities to provide any information which can be used to check that the concession granted to Pedemontana Lombarda S.p.A., as indicated by the Honourable Member, is compatible with Community law with respect to public works contracts. If it were to emerge from an examination of the above-mentioned information that the procedures followed were not compatible with Community law, the infringement procedure provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty could be initiated. C 340 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
3. As regards the concession system and its impact on rebalancing transport between road and rail, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member of its answer to Question E-0371/01, namely that the Commission generally considers it preferable to make direct users bear the cost of using the particular infrastructure and that it is examining measures which could contribute to a rebalancing of transport between road and rail in the Community, particularly measures concerning the system of charging for the use of infrastructure and infrastructure financing.
(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
(2001/C 340 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0923/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Public authorities’ use of incorrect conversion tables will encourage inflation when the euro is introduced
1. Is the Commission aware that it has been the Dutch government’s intention since February 2000 to increase fines (which have remained at the same level since 1981) by 10,19 % with effect from 2000 and that this increase is to be simplified by replacing every two guilders together worth € 0,90756 by one whole euro?
2. Does the Commission know of any other examples of authorities of, or within, a Member State intending to use the introduction of the euro on 1 January 2002 to increase their tariffs or fines by using a conversion table different to the one officially fixed in late 1998 for the comparative values of existing currencies and the euro?
3. Does the Commission agree that the use by dealers of the euro logo agreement, which it called for in its reply to Question E-4066/00 (1), could be at risk if governments give the impression that they want to increase their revenue when the euro is introduced?
4. Is the Commission prepared to help ensure that any price increases deemed desirable by governments are only implemented at a time when prices before and after the increase are expressed in the same currency, so that they are apparent to everyone as a decision taken consciously and completely independently of the introduction of a new unit of currency?
5. What other steps is the Commission planning to take to prevent government policy contributing in any way to the massive inflation which is feared will occur on 1 January 2002, and which the Commission explicitly denied would happen in its answer to Question E-4066/00?
(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 125.
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2001)
1. The possibility of increasing fines in the Netherlands through the changeover to the euro, after initial consideration, has been discarded by the Dutch authorities. The conversion will leave values unaltered or marginally modify them, in the conversion process, strictly to the advantage of the public.
2. and 3. Most public authorities of euro area Member States commit themselves to setting a positive example by organising the changeover of their tariffs in a neutral manner, requested among others by European Federations in the agreement on good practices signed on 2 April 2001. Wherever the exact value in conversion cannot be maintained the conversion process will always be to the advantage of the public.
4. Price increase which normally take place at the beginning of the year will be introduced at the usual times. The introduction of the euro will not disrupt what are usual practices and deadlines. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/127
5. The Commission has proposed, in its Communication of 3 April 2001 (1), several lines of action discussed and pursued with euro area Member States and European trade federations. These include: encouraging the adoption of dual pricing, increasing the frequency of price surveys and checks in late 2001 and early 2002, creating a commitment to overall stability (pursued among others through the agreement of 2 April 2001), building on the example set by the public administrations and organising specific price surveys to monitor trends in prices.
(1) COM(2001) 190 final.
(2001/C 340 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0924/01 by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Council
(29 March 2001)
Subject: Directive on renewable energy sources
At the Kyoto Conference the European Union undertook to ensure that, between 2008 and 2012, greenhouse-gas emissions would be reduced by 8 % by comparison with 1990 levels. However, such emissions have in fact increased in most of the Member States and the situation is so serious that the EEA (European Environment Agency) has recently forecast that by 2010 there will have been a 6 % increase in EU greenhouse-gas emissions.
In February of this year the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) put forward positively alarming forecasts regarding the impact which greenhouse-gas emissions could have on climate change, namely that by 2100 the Earth’s temperature could increase by over 5 °C.
In 2000 the Commission submitted a Green Paper which lays the foundations of a European scheme for trading in emission rights. The undeniable advantage of this scheme (which is to come into effect in 2005) is that it will use the rules of the market in order to bring about a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions at a very low cost although the European Union has always rightly maintained that flexible instruments (in particular trading in emission rights) are intended as an adjunct to policies and measures which are to be given absolute priority the most important of these being the promotion of renewable energy sources.
The Commission recently submitted a directive which sets quantified targets for the promotion of renewable energy sources. Despite the soundness of this initiative, some of the Member States are currently questioning the need for those targets to be made mandatory.
Meeting the targets laid down in the Directive on renewable energy sources would take the European Union halfway to meeting the Kyoto commitments.
In the view of the above, would the Council answer the following questions:
1. What is the position of Portugal vis-à-vis the targets laid down in the Directive on renewable energy sources (given that Portugal is one of the countries which have recorded the largest increases in greenhouse-gas emissions)?
2. On the eve of what will be very difficult negotiations at the COP6a meeting, what would be the political impact of any decision to make the targets laid down in the Directive on renewable energy sources mandatory?
Reply
(16 July 2001)
With regard to the first question put forward by the Honourable Member, it must be stated that the Council does not, as a matter of principle, comment on the positions of individual Member States. C 340 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
With regard to the second question, it is sufficient to state that the Council remains firm about the EU- reduction targets set in Kyoto. As has been repeatedly stated by the Council, the reduction will be brought about by policies and measures both at the Community- and the national levels, and in accordance with the EU’s burdensharing agreement, matters which are currently discussed within the Council, with particular regard to the ongoing discussions within the framework of the IPCCC.
(2001/C 340 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0929/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Transfer of Brix Knudsen
Brix Knudsen, a Commission official, was Director of UCLAF. He was personally attacked by certain commissioners during the debate on fraud in the ECHO projects in Bosnia. Brix Knudsen is no longer director of UCLAF but is now a director with non-active status. Was he moved because of the criticisms of him by certain commissioners during the discussion of the ECHO scandal?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2001)
Mr Brix Knudsen was appointed a Director in the Anti-Fraud Coordination Unit (UCLAF) in October 1993. OLAF (the European Anti Fraud Office) was established by Regulation in 1999 and became operational on 1 June. Mr Knudsen continued to serve as a Director in the new body until the end of May 2000, thus ensuring a smooth hand over of responsibilities to the Director General of OLAF, who had been appointed on 1 March of the same year.
In June 2000, at his own request, Mr Knudsen was appointed as a Principal Advisor ‘Ad Personam’ to the Director General of Administration (DG ADMIN). He subsequently applied for, and was appointed to, the post of Director in the Directorate General for EuropeAid Co-operation Office (AIDCO) in January 2001.
The Commission’s appointment of Mr Knudsen as Director in DG AIDCO was solely based on the requirements of the vacant post and the qualifications of the successful applicant. The term ‘non-active status’ used by the Honourable Member is clearly not relevant or accurate.
(2001/C 340 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0932/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Commission sponsoring of Generation Europe
How much was spent, and under what budget headings, in sponsoring Generation Europe in 1998, 1999 and 2000, and what will be the size of the sponsorship contribution for 2001?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(16 May 2001)
‘Generation Europe’ is an organisation which has received subsidies from the Commission for producing a school diary. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/129
The subsidies awarded by the Commission by way of sponsorship for this diary have been as follows:
1998/1999 academic year: € 32 000 (budget heading B3300; commitment introduced in 1998 by the Directorate-General for Information, Communication, Culture and Audiovisual Media, formerly DG X);
1999/2000 academic year: € 38 000 (budget heading B3306; commitment introduced in 1999 by the Directorate-General for Education and Culture);
2000/2001 academic year: as no call for proposals was issued as part of the activities of the Directorate-General for Press and Communication, no subsidy was awarded from the 2000 budget, nor will any be awarded by that Directorate-General from the 2001 budget.
(2001/C 340 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0937/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Publication of the Lowe report on the ECHO fraud
It is in the general interest that the report drawn up by Philip Lowe, a senior Commission official, concerning the irregularities at ECHO in respect of the three projects involving contracts with Messrs. Perry Lux, in which large sums of money disappeared, be published.
When will the Commission be publishing this report and why has it not yet been published?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 2001)
The report by Mr Lowe was drawn up for the purposes of an administrative investigation that was initiated in order to clarify all the possible responsibilities for certain alleged actions and, in particular, the regularity of specific contracts signed by the Commission for financing humanitarian actions.
The Commission grants very broad access to information to Parliament in order to ensure transparency and openness. However, as already pointed out in the framework of the 1998 discharge procedure (1)two exceptions to this access require and justify confidentiality. The first concerns sensitive reports on administrative investigations which may lead to other procedures, and the second concerns detailed minutes of the disciplinary board.
Mr Lowe’s report necessarily contained references that have direct implications for individual rights. It must, therefore, remain confidential and cannot be published.
(1) Statement by the Member of the Commission responsible for the budget in the plenary debates on 11 April 2000.
(2001/C 340 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0948/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Use of alkyphenols
1. Will the Commission indicate the current position on restrictions on the use of alkyphenols in EU legislation and in the national laws of the Member States?
2. Is the Commission aware that alkyphenols are used in industrial detergents, spermicidal lubricants and pesticide sprays and are known hormone disrupters? C 340 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
3. Is the Commission aware of alternative products that might be used to perform the same tasks without the same side-effects?
4. Is the Commission satisfied with the current level of restrictions on the use of alkyphenols?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2001)
The Commission is currently finalising the assessment of the risks to human health and environment, under Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (1), of two nonylphenols, with the United Kingdom as Rapporteur Member State: (a) Phenol, 4-nonyl, branched (CAS Registry Number 84852-15-3); (b) Nonylphenol (CAS Registry Number 25154-52-3) and related derivatives (nonylphenol ethoxylates)
Nonylphenols and the nonylphenol ethoxylates are a family of products that constitute only a sub-group of the larger group of alkylphenols.
Following the completion of this work, restrictions on the marketing and use of nonylphenols and nonylphenol ethoxylates could be proposed, as appropriate.
To date, no Community measures have been adopted concerning alkylphenols in general.
The risk assessment reports indicate that the main use of these nonylphenols is as an intermediate in the production of nonylphenol ethoxylates, which in turn are used in detergents and paints and in the production of resins, plastics and stabilisers in the polymer industry. Other uses include the manufacture of phenolic oximes for use outside the Community in the metal extraction industry and in some speciality paints. The substance has a hormone disruptive ability. It also has several toxic properties, which occur at exposures similar to those inducing hormone system disturbances.
The risk assessment reports determined that the substances pose risks to human health (workers) and the environment (aquatic and terrestrial environment).
These conclusions were supported by the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment in its opinion of 4 February 2000.
Work is currently underway in the framework of the Regulation to identify the specific additional measures needed to control the identified risks. In this context issues related to substitution are also taken into account. It is expected that this work will be completed in June 2001.
(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
(2001/C 340 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0950/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Use of Bisphenol A
Is the Commission satisfied that the current use of Bisphenol A is consistent with consumer safety? Will it confirm that there is now scientific evidence that current human exposure is at about the same level as that which causes damage to the reproductive system of mice, and that Bisphenol A is a known hormone disrupter? Will it list the current uses of Bisphenol A known to the Commission and confirm its use in protective coatings for tin cans, in white dental fillings and in polycarbonate plastic bottles? Is the Commission aware of alternative products that could be used to perform the same tasks without the same side effects? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/131
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(13 June 2001)
The possible risks to health and to the environment of Bisphenol A are being evaluated in the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (1).
Bisphenol A is used in the production of polycarbonates and epoxy resins, which have a number of applications in consumer goods, such as food and beverage containers, which have epoxy resin internal coatings, and polycarbonate tableware and bottles, such a those used for infant formula milk. Another source of consumer exposure arises from its use in dental fissure sealants.
The risk assessment has identified health concerns (eye and respiratory tract irritation, skin sensitisation, effects on the liver and fertility) in certain occupational exposure scenarios, and also concerns for environmental damage in relation to specified uses. No concerns have been identified for consumer exposures in relation to any of the above-mentioned effects. Discussions in relation to developmental toxicity, and the significance of the findings in mice at very low dose levels are still ongoing.
The results of the risk evaluations will be summarised in a Commission Recommendation published in the Official Journal. Where unacceptable risks are identified, the Commission will consider risk reduction measures, as appropriate, in those areas where concerns have been indicated. In this context, issues related to substitution will also be taken into account.
(1) OJ L 224, 3.9.1993.
(2001/C 340 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0956/01 by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Coastal erosion
Coastal areas are of great economic, environmental, social and cultural significance in Europe, given their importance in an extremely wide range of policy areas, including fisheries, transport, energy, resources management, the protection of wildlife and habitats, employment, regional development, tourism, industry, waste management and education. Nonetheless, and despite the urgency of the matter, very little is being done to find solutions to the problem of coastal erosion, which is largely being ignored.
This irreversible process, which is going on in almost all the EU Member States, is the result of global warming. Italy, which has almost 8 000 kilometres of coastline, is extremely conscious of the need to contain this natural process. However, although it is endeavouring to take action at local and regional level, on its own it can do very little to tackle a problem requiring action at European level which is compatible with the environmental policies of the other countries and includes cross-border cooperation in coastal areas.
The damage caused by melting icecaps and rising sea levels is difficult to quantify and solutions are hard to find and often turn out to be merely stopgap measures which, were they to be upgraded to a formal strategy at Member State level, would prove too costly.
However, the provision of funding for pilot projects would encourage experts and researchers to study the problem more closely and would provide many young graduates and research centres with an opportunity to work on practical projects. Such research could lead to the formulation of viable solutions, and relevant findings and proposals could be made available to all the Member States. C 340 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Given the above, would the Commission state:
how aware it is of the problem of coastal erosion;
if any steps are being taken to respond to the needs of the Member States in this area;
if it has made provision for relevant programmes and funding;
if it intends to allocate funding to pilot projects, and how long it will take for usable findings to be produced?
It must also be pointed out that, since ‘repair work’ does not yield satisfactory results and does not enable the process to be held in check, the damage caused by coastal erosion will continue to increase.
With a view to a longer-term strategy, what steps will be taken at Community level to meet the needs of the Member States that are having to cope with this problem on a daily basis?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2001)
On 27 September 2000, the Commission adopted a Communication to the Council and the Parliament on Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A Strategy for Europe (1). This document is based on the results of a three-year demonstration programme, which analysed the problems of the coastal zones and evaluated potential tools for addressing these problems.
The above Communication cites coastal zone erosion as one of the problems commonly faced in the coastal zone. Furthermore, increased problems of coastal erosion and flooding are cited in various Commission documents and Commission funded studies related to the potential impacts of increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Commission is therefore well aware of the issue of coastal zone erosion.
The Commission has a number of programmes that may be used to finance projects intended to develop understanding of the mechanisms of coastal erosion, or to develop innovative measures to manage or reduce the impacts of such erosion. An entire section of the Environment and Sustainable Development research programme in the Community’s Fifth research and technological development (RTD) framework programme deals with ‘Coastal protection against flooding and erosion’, and € 7,5 million have been spent recently on RTD projects in this field. Moreover, research in this field has been supported within the Community’s RTD framework programmes since 1989.
In addition to the possibility of research funding under the Community’s RTD framework programmes, innovative projects intended to address coastal erosion in the context of integrated planning and management of the coastal zone may be presented to the LIFE programme. The Commission’s Strategy on Integrated Coastal Zone Management also aims to stimulate the development and diffusion of ‘best practice’ in coastal zone management through creation of a coastal zone practitioners’ network.
The Commission has also proposed a Parliament and Council Recommendation to the Member States on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (2), calling on the Member States to develop national strategies for Integrated Coastal Zone Management.
Furthermore, the Community is working to reduce the probable magnitude of climate change through its actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to promote the ratification and application of the Kyoto Protocol.
However, the Commission would like to stress that, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, the responsibility for the routine management and mitigation of coastal erosion damage lies with the Member States. Specific action will be needed at the local level to introduce appropriate measures; these measures will need to be based on assessments of the technical possibilities and the economic costs and benefits of possible responses (including managed retreat) on a case by case basis. Some measures might be incorporated into Structural Funds programmes, in eligible areas. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/133
The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), adopted on 10/11 May 1999 at the close of the Informal Council of Community Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning, serves as a policy framework for the Member States, their regions and local authorities and the Commission in their aim of achieving a balanced and sustainable development of the European territory.
Several policy options of the ESDP explicitly mention the common problems of coastal areas. The ESDP supports effective methods of reducing uncontrolled urban expansion and reduction of excessive settlement pressure, particularly in coastal regions, and encourages the preparation of integrated spatial development strategies for protected areas, such as coastal areas, balancing protection and development on the basis of territorial and environmental impact assessments and involving the partners concerned.
To take concrete steps in applying the ESDP and to improve knowledge, research and information on territorial development, the Commission will co-finance through the Community Initiative Interreg III the setting up of a European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) for the period 2001-2006 (€ 6 million over the period 2001-2006).
The ESPON Guidelines for the period 2001-2006 include research on the evaluation of trends affecting certain groups of territories ‘at risk’, such as coastal areas, and the territorial management of climate changes (impact of measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases; anticipation of territorial impacts of climate changes) among the topics to be developed.
(1) COM(2000) 547 final. (2) COM(2000) 545 final.
(2001/C 340 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0957/01 by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Decision on setting up an Enterprise Policy Group (EPG)
Article 257 of the EC Treaty provides for the creation of an Economic and Social Committee (ESC) which has been advising the Commission since 1957. Nevertheless, on 8 November 2000 the Commission adopted a decision to set up an advisory committee, called the ‘Enterprise Policy Group’, whose task is to advise the Commission on business policy. In some cases experts will receive a fixed allowance of up to € 500 a day for their advice.
Can the Commission explain why this Group’s tasks cannot be performed by the ESC? By setting up a separate ‘Enterprise Policy Group’ is the Commission expressing doubts as to the added value of the advice of the ESC? How can the Commission justify incurring costs for obtaining advice which is available elsewhere free of charge? Did members of the ESC respond to the invitation, and have they been included in the ‘Enterprise Policy Group’?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(9 July 2001)
The Economic and Social Committee is a consultative body of the European Community made up of representatives of the various economic and social groups. Its membership must take account of the need to ensure adequate representation for those groups. The EC Treaty lays down the instances in which the Committee must be consulted, and the Commission recognises and fully respects its powers. In particular, the Committee gives its opinion on the legislative proposals made by the Commission in the cases laid down by the Treaty. However, before this happens, the Commission must draft its proposals and in this it has the power of initiative. In order to ensure that its initiatives are consistent, coherent, realistic and applicable, the Commission surrounds itself with the technical expertise it considers necessary. For this, a specific structure for consultation is required, and it is within this structure that the Enterprise Policy Group to which the Honourable Member refers was set up by Commission Decision 2000/690/EC of 8 November 2000 (1), with the task of advising the Commission on enterprise policy issues. C 340 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Current and former members of the Economic and Social Committee are being considered for membership of the Group. The functions of Group member are not remunerated. The daily allowance of € 500 to which the Honourable Member refers was provided for by the Decision setting up the Group. It is intended to facilitate the participation of owners or employees of small and medium-sized enterprises, since it is in particular those working full-time in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) whose opinion interests the Commission.
The Commission finds that the advantages of thoroughly preparing its proposals and other initiatives in areas contributing towards the economic wealth of our society are ample justification for the costs incurred. It should be remembered that the Group was set up in order to rationalise the Commission’s work, as indicated in the second recital of Decision 2000/690/EC, and that it replaces several committees or groups which existed previously under the auspices of the Commission in the area of enterprise policy.
(1) OJ L 285, 10.11.2000.
(2001/C 340 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0963/01 by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(20 March 2001)
Subject: Vehicle registration plates
Will the European Commission please justify provisions which prohibit the display of the national flag of Member States on vehicle registration plates but which at the same time permit the display of the European Union flag?
Will it further review the appropriate legislation and allow Member States to determine for themselves what is permissible in this respect, since the prohibition of a Member State’s national symbol under any circumstance hits at the very core of national sovereignty?
Anwer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2001)
There is no Community legislation either prohibitting the use of any national symbol in motor vehicles number plates or imposing the use of the European flag.
Therefore it is a matter for individual Member States to decide if they want to introduce or not national symbols in their number plates.
Concerning the use of the Community flag in number plates, Council Regulation (EC) No 2411/98 of 3 November 1998 (1) just provides for the mutual recognition in intra-Community traffic of the distinguishing sign of the Member State in which motor vehicles and their trailers are registered.
The Commission has no intention to propose to modify the Council Regulation.
(1) OJ L 299, 10.11.1998. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/135
(2001/C 340 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0965/01 by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Systems for monitoring food safety, animal feed and BSE tests
1. What systems for do the countries of central and eastern Europe, and in particular the candidates for accession, have for monitoring:
(a) food safety, and
(b) animal feed?
2. Which central and eastern European countries have already introduced instant testing for BSE or are planning to do so?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 2001)
The existing systems in the candidate countries for monitoring food safety, including animal nutrition, are diverse, with various authorities involved. Changes are in many cases necessary in order to align their systems with the Community approach on food safety, and the Community legislative acquis.
Food safety has been identified as a priority in the enlargement process. The entire food chain must be covered by applying the ‘farm to table’ approach, including the animal feed sector. In order to introduce a coherent approach in this field, the Commission has invited each candidate country to submit a Food Safety Strategy. This strategy should include the order and timing for transposing the food safety- related Community legislation. Moreover the strategy should explain the structures and resources of the responsible authorities and the co-ordination between different authorities.
According to the information available to the Commission at the moment, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic have either introduced testing methods for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or are planning to introduce them.
(2001/C 340 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0967/01 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Restrictive practices for sports equipment
Following its reply to my Oral Question QH-0929/00 (1), has the Commission received any ‘duly substantiated complaints’?
Has it also received a submission from the Federation of European Sporting Goods Industries (FESI) on the multiplication of certification systems by sports federations?
Does it accept that certain sports federations go beyond what is required in terms of safety, sporting equality or technical necessities and have, in fact, turned their certification schemes into a commercial practice?
Are sports federations entitled to insist on their own labels even when, under the legislation, the equipment in question is subject to self-certification? C 340 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Does the Commission consider such practices to be consistent with Directive 89/686/EEC (2) and with competition law?
What action does the Commission intend to take?
(1) Written reply dated 13 December 2000. (2) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 18.
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(19 June 2001)
The Commission confirms that, following its reply to the Honourable Member’s Oral Question H-0929/00 during question time at Parliament’s December 2000 part-session (1), it did receive a complaint concerning alleged restrictive practices in the field of sports equipment. This complaint is currently being examined in accordance with prescribed procedures.
The Commission read with great interest the submission from the Federation of European Sporting Goods Industries (FESI) on the multiplication of certification systems by sports federations and took note of its requests. Following the submission by FESI, an informal meeting was held between the Commission and a FESI representative during which the above topic was further discussed.
The Commission is aware of the fact that the role of sports federations has evolved in recent years and that the economic impact of sports organisations’ regulations has become more and more important in recent years. In particular, the increased influence of commerce in the field of sports is noteworthy. This latter development, however, does not by itself allow the general conclusion that the activities of certain sports federations go beyond what is acceptable under relevant Community legislation and competition law.
From a competition law point of view, the question whether sports federations are entitled to insist on the use of their own certification labels is an issue which can only be assessed in the light of the relevant legal and economic context of each case. In general, however reference can be made to established Commission policy which provides that certification systems need to respect the following four criteria in order to fall outside the prohibition of Article 81(1) (ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty: openness, independence, transparency and acceptance of equivalent guarantees offered by other systems (2).
Furthermore, according to Article 8.3 of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (PPE) (3), and modified by Council Directives 93/68/CEE of 22 July 1993 (4), 93/95/CEE of 29 October 1993 (5) and 96/ 58/CE of 3 September 1996 of the Parliament and of the Council (6), the rugby protective equipment referred to shall be submitted to the EC type-examination procedure described in its Article 10, which foresees that the manufacturer shall submit a model of the PPE he intends to place on the market to a Notified Body, i.e. an inspection body designated by the national authorities. The Notified Body establishes and certifies that the PPE model in question satisfies to the relevant provisions of the PPE Directive.
The Commission intends to continue its examination of the complaint it has received, while at the same time monitoring further general developments on the market for sports equipment.
(1) Written reply 13.12.2000. (2) See joint Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96, SCK and FNK / Commission ECR II-1739. (3) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989. (4) OJ L 220, 30.8.1993. (5) OJ L 276, 9.11.1993. (6) OJ L 236, 18.9.1996. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/137
(2001/C 340 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0975/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council
(3 April 2001)
Subject: Stockholm Summit
Recent reports suggest that the Swedish Presidency intends to the make the March Summit a ‘baby summit’ concerned with remedying the EU’s demographic profile by encouraging Europeans to have more children.
What studies has the Council made of effectiveness of similar exhortations in the past? What estimates has it made of the strain on the EU’s resources and natural environment that an increase in the birth rate would place? And how does it believe such a policy would dovetail with the EU’s emerging common policy on immigration?
Reply
(16 July 2001)
The Stockholm European Council on 23 and 24 March 2001 addressed the demographic challenge of an ageing population and the consequences for social welfare systems.
It was pointed out that the ageing society calls for clear strategies for ensuring the adequacy of pension systems, as well as of health care systems and care of the elderly, while at the same time maintaining the sustainability of public finances and inter-generational solidarity.
The question of demographic change was debated in that context, but the Stockholm European Council did not explicitly debate encouraging Europeans to have more children and therefore cannot be considered to have been a ‘baby summit’.
(2001/C 340 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0986/01 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Normal funding of CAP and measures to eradicate BSE in Greece
It has recently been estimated that measures to eradicate BSE may last a number of years and thus completely upset the normal funding of the Common Agricultural Policy, since even the cost of implementing Regulation (EC) 2777/2000 (1) adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market, which provides for a scheme under which bovine animals over 30 months old may be purchased for destruction instead of being slaughtered for human consumption, will be in excess of € 1 billion. next year.
Bearing mind also that from 1 January 2001 all the Member States are obliged under Decision 2001/8/ EC (2) to apply reinforced rules for the testing of bovine animals entering the food chain and annual programmes of epidemio-surveillance of BSE involving rapid post mortem tests, will the Commission say:
1. How does it intend to address the cost explosion in the beef sector due to the implementation of the measures to eradicate BSE without disturbing the normal funding of the CAP and the agreed framework for the financial perspective?
2. Have the legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions for the implementation of the BSE epidemio-surveillance programme entered into force in Greece, what spending has been made and what progress achieved, according to the report which the Greek authorities were due to submit to the Commission in March 2001? C 340 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
3. What checks have been carried out (sampling and laboratory tests) in Greece on the basis of Decision 2000/374/EC (3) on epidemio-surveillance for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies by the two national reference laboratories and what were their findings?
4. What aid has Greece received from the Community in connection with the Community reference laboratories designated at Community level in accordance with Directives 92/46/EEC (4), 92/117/ EEC (5), 1999/72/EC (6) and Decisions 1999/312/EC (7) and 1999/313/EC (8)?
5. Has an electronic tagging and registration system been introduced for cattle in Greece and what is the state of implementation of Directive 93/43/EC (9) on the hygiene of foodstuffs?
(1) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000, p. 47. (2) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 28. (3) OJ L 135, 8.6.2000, p. 27. (4) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1. (5) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 38. (6) OJ L 210, 10.8.1999, p. 12. (7) OJ L 120, 8.5.1999, p. 37. (8) OJ L 120, 8.5.1999, p. 40. (9) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(30 May 2001)
1. For the financial year 2001, the appropriations from the initial budget were established at a time when the forecasts for the agricultural markets were favourable. The initial appropriations estimated as sufficient for financing the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 2001 accordingly amount to € 38 803 million, leaving a margin of € 1 232 million in relation to the financial ceiling for the agricultural sector.
Following the BSE crisis which erupted at the end of 2000 and the measures adopted in December 2000, the costs of which for 2001 were estimated to be € 971 million, the Commission proposed and the budgetary authority adopted an amending supplementary budget at the end of February 2001 which increases the appropriations for the bovine sector by € 971 million. Total agricultural appropriations were increased by € 726 million because, in accordance with the rules of budgetary discipline, the supplementary revised budget had to take account of the development of the dollar-euro exchange rate and reduce, by € 245 million, the appropriations for certain sectors. The new agricultural appropriations for financing the CAP, except for rural development, come to € 39 529 and remain below the financial ceiling for the agricultural sector
The budget for 2002 has not yet been drawn up. However, as part of the preparatory work, it is estimated that the additional expenditure resulting from the measures adopted and proposed following the BSE crisis will continue to be financed in accordance with the financial perspective.
It should be noted that the assumptions on which these forecasts are based are not altogether solid. If these assumptions prove to be optimistic, it will be necessary to revise the financial estimates upwards and re- examine the situation with regard to the ceiling of the financial perspective. Foot-and-mouth disease is also another element which creates uncertainty and budgetary risk. The situation is therefore being monitored carefully.
2. and 3. At the beginning of this year, Member States were asked to send a report to the Commission on the status of implementation of the new BSE-related Community measures. In that report, Greece confirmed that the new legislation on BSE testing had been implemented. The Food and Veterinary Office checked the implementation of BSE-related legislation, including epidemio-surveillance, in an inspection carried out in Greece in February 2001. Once the final report of this mission has been completed, it will be circulated to the Parliament and published on the Commission’s web-site. A further mission to Greece is scheduled to take place within the next few months.
According to monthly reports on BSE testing received from the Greek veterinary services, a total of 2 147 BSE tests were carried out between January and March 2001. Of these, 2 052 were made in healthy slaughtered cattle, 57 in dead-on-farm cattle and 38 in emergency slaughtered cattle. In addition, two clinically suspect animals were examined for BSE. The results of all tests and examinations were negative. No report has so far been received on spending. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/139
4. So far, the Community has not granted financial aid to Greece pursuant to the Directives and Decision mentioned by the Honourable Member. None of the Community Reference Laboratories mentioned in those Directives and Decisions is situated in Greece.
5. The Commission is not aware of the introduction of an electronic ear-tagging system for cattle in Greece. The Commission project on electronic identification of animals (IDEA) is due to be finalised by the end of this year. On the basis of the outcome of this project the Commission will present a report on electronic identification accompanied by possible proposals to the Parliament and the Council.
With regard to Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of foodstuffs, Greece informed the Commission of the act of transposition of 27 October 2000. Each Member State is responsible for implementing the Directive. The Commission, through the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), carries out on-site checks in the form of audits to ascertain how the Member States have transposed and implemented the Directive.
(2001/C 340 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0987/01 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Threat of survival of cetaceans
Every year tens of thousands of cetaceans die in fishing nets in European waters in particular some 4 % of the total population of harbour whales die in this way. The IWC estimates that in the long term marine cetaceans are in danger of becoming extinct, since they are dying off at a rate of 1 % annually.
Given that Principle 15 of the Rio Earth Summit Conference of 1992 and UNEP’s 1999 annual report attach great importance to multilateral environmental agreements as a means of reducing environmental degradation, what action does the Commission intend to take to address this important problem?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(8 June 2001)
All cetacean species are specifically protected under the Habitats Directive (1). Member States have to take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection in order to ensure a favourable conservation status of cetaceans.
On the basis of this Directive, and along with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (2) (CITES), any kind of hunting for whales and trading in whale species is forbidden in the Community.
As for the interaction between these species and fishing activities, the Community has addressed the incidental capture of cetaceans on several occasions, adopting legislation on the grounds both of internal and multilateral commitments.
Community Fisheries legislation already limits the size of drift nets and has introduced measures to prohibit their use from the start of 2002, with expected consequential benefits to the cetaceans (3) populations.
At multilateral level, the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme (4) is applied by the Community since 1 June 1999, following its adoption by the Council. The Community has subsequently implemented the rules of this Agreement with a view to protecting cetaceans in the tuna fisheries of the Pacific Ocean (5). C 340 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
From a broader viewpoint, the Commission is well aware that the protection of marine bio-diversity needs an integrated strategy to cope with the degradation of marine habitats. The development of such strategy is therefore considered a priority (6). Furthermore, taking into account the interest that the Community has in promoting more sustainable fishing activities, the use of selectivity devices that reduce or eliminate by- catches of non-target species is also to be considered (7). In both cases, there is scope for improving the coordination with Member States as well as the dialogue with international organizations and other interested countries.
(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992). (2) Implemented by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 of 3 December 1982 on the implementation in the Community of the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 384, 31.12.1982). (3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98, amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ L 171, 17.6.1998). (4) Council Decision 1999/386/EC of 7 June 1999 (OJ L 147, 12.6.1999). (5) Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98, of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (OJ L 125, 27.4.1998). (6) Communication from the Commission on the sixth environment action programme of the European Community, COM(2001) 31 final. (7) Communication from the Commission on a Biodiversity Action Plan for Fisheries, COM(2001) 162 final.
(2001/C 340 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0989/01 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Unacceptable attitude of US senators
On Thursday, 8 March 2001 EU representatives, including Mr Rodotà, the Chairman of the Article 29 Working Group, visited the US Congress. According to European press reports, they were violently criticised by senators who see the Directive on the protection of personal data on the Internet as excessively tough. In particular, Senator Buyer praised his forefathers for taking the right decision and leaving Europe.
Will the Commission say whether it will yield to American pressure or continue the work it has begun to ensure that users’ rights are more effectively protected on the Internet?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(6 June 2001)
The Commission proposal for a Directive on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector of 12 July 2000 (1), to which the Honourable Member refers, is currently being discussed in co-decision procedure. It is the Commission’s view that the proposal contains the most appropriate approach for the protection of personal data in the electronic communications sector including the Internet and hopes that it will be adopted by the Parliament and the Council before the end of this year.
(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/141
(2001/C 340 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0991/01 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Dangerous protein in maize
Research carried out into maize seeds in the USA this year found that they contained the genetically modified protein Starlink called Cry9c. This causes dangerous allergic reactions in humans. Will the Commission say whether any similar research has been carried out in Europe in order to to protect the EU’s food supply?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 2001)
According to the american authorities, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided not to licence the genetically modified maize variety ‘StarLink’ for food use because of uncertainties regarding its potential allergenicity. It took this decision based on the findings of two scientific panels, which concluded that there was no evidence of an allergen, but that there was nonetheless insufficient information to rule out potential allergenicity.
In the Community, genetically modified foods have to undergo a safety assessment under Regulation (EC) 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Counicl of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1) before being placed on the market. Under this Regulation, authorisation will not be granted if the food present a danger for the consumer, mislead the consumer or differ from foods or food ingredients which they are intended to replace to such an extent that their normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer.
No application for the approval of the placing on the market of the Star Link maize in the Community has been forwarded to the Commission. StarLink maize has not been approved for cultivation or food use in the Community, and foodstuffs containing or derived from StarLink maize may therefore not be placed on the market in the Community.
(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.
(2001/C 340 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0993/01 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Lies by Commissioner Kinnock to the Committee on Budgetary Control
A letter sent to Commissioner Kinnock on 26 February 2001 by Mr Reichenbach, Director-General of Administration, and Mr Brouwer, Director, accuses the Commissioner of having lied to the Committee on Budgetary Control in asserting that he had not been informed by the committee of the financial difficulties, disorganisation and fraud observed in the rebuilding of the Berlaymont building.
Can Commissioner Kinnock refute these accusations? C 340 E/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(8 May 2001)
The Honourable Member bases his question on an internal note which has come into his possession, dated 26 February 2001 and addressed to me by Horst Reichenbach, Director General of Directorate General Administration (DG ADMIN), and Sipke Brouwer, Director in DG ADMIN.
The assertion made by the Honourable Member in his question that the authors of the note accused me of lying to the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) is entirely unfounded.
The full record of events is as follows: on 22 February 2001 I compiled a preliminary draft statement for my appearance at a meeting of Cocobu scheduled for 26 February 2001 and sent a copy to Mr Reichenbach and Mr Brouwer, which they received on 23 February 2001. A phrase in the draft statement was misinterpreted and Mr Reichenbach and Mr Brouwer expressed their misgivings in a note which they brought to my office at the beginning of a meeting early on the morning of 26 February 2001.
At that meeting the misunderstanding was cleared up. The note was therefore written, received and dealt with several hours before I attended the Cocobu meeting that afternoon.
The assumption on which the Honourable Member has based his question is manifestly wrong in all respects.
The Director General of DG ADMIN fully supported the text of the statement that I delivered to Cocobu, and was personally present during the Cocobu session in question.
On the issue of information: all dates and data in my speech were confirmed by the Commission’s Internal Audit Service in an independent report prepared at the beginning of February 2001. In my statement to Cocobu, I said ‘that services in DG ADMIN were informed by Berlaymont 2000 of a potentially large cost increase of BEF 2,5 billion in January 2000. The services then had this estimate verified by the Commission’s external consultants. […] The results of that assessment were received orally in early April 2000 and in written form in a final audit report in May 2000. On the basis of that, in July last year I was informed of the projected cost increase …’. I will readily provide the verbatim text of my statement to Cocobu to the Honourable Member.
The concerns which I had expressed in the draft which I sent to my services related to the lack of information to me on these developments during the time that the verification of estimates was taking place. With this in mind, I accurately informed Cocobu that I had ‘ensured that the information flow relevant to this issue has been intensified’ and that I had ‘obtained full information on all significant developments over the recent months’.
I did not tell Cocobu that my services had not informed me of a suspicion of potential fraud. Indeed I said the following: an independent external analysis on ‘the short-term financing arrangements for the renovation, and of the legitimacy of payments which Berlaymont 2000 had made up to then’ was ‘provided in November in the form of a strategy paper by our external consultants. That provided me with the first clear and fully comprehensive overview of the state of affairs. Together with my cabinet colleagues and the Director General of DG ADMIN I naturally studied the analysis thoroughly, and we then immediately decided to take a number of initiatives: because there was a possibility of potential fraud …, the whole file was transmitted to OLAF on 17 November’. In short, as I accurately reported to Cocobu, I was promptly informed of, and advised on, the concerns of my services relating to potential fraud.
The Honourable Member has made a major error of judgement in making assumptions about the nature and context of the internal note of 26 February 2001 which had been leaked to him by an unauthorised and unknown person. On the basis of that error of judgement, the Honourable Member has entitled his question ‘Mr Kinnock lies to Cocobu’ and spoken to the press and others of ‘Kinnock’s lies’.
There have been no lies of any kind at any time and no such accusations have been made by anyone. If the Honourable Member is an honourable man, he will give attention to the facts and publicly withdraw all statements making such allegations. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/143
(2001/C 340 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0997/01 by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Projected construction of the ‘Torre Inserraglio Marína’ near Serra Cicora in the Commune of Nardò (Lecce)
The Commune of Nardò (Lecce) has begun administrative proceedings, at the request of the ICOS company, to approve the final project for the Torre Inserraglio Marína to be constructed at Serra Cicora.
The project would cover a total area of 72 000 m2, and involve: the excavation of an internal basin measuring 42 000 m2; an access canal 55 m long and 35 m wide; two outer breakwaters projecting out to sea, one 148 m long and the other 15 m long; various infrastructures on land covering a total area of 27 000 m2 (including a car park for over 300 cars, link roads and two administrative buildings). The designated site is about 4 km from SCI (Site of Community Importance) IT9150013 Palude del Capitano, about 1,1 km from SCI IT9150007 Torre Uluzzu, and adjacent to SCI IT9150024 Torre Inserraglio.
The excavation of the access canal to the port will affect a stretch of cliffs featuring a natural habitat designated as ‘sea cliffs of the Mediterranean coasts (with endemic limonium spp)’ (sea lavender) and recognised as being of Community interest pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC (1). Large areas of the projected site are covered by Mediterranean ‘maquis’, which is protected under both national and regional legislation. The site also contains various species of orchids (Orchis Morio, Orchis papilionacea, Ophrys tenthredinifera) which are protected under the CITES convention.
Some 2,5 km offshore from the site lies Zone A (the section subject to the most stringent restrictions on use) of the Porto Cesareo Natural Maríne Protected Area (2). Moreover, the projected marina would be only 20 m from the well-established Porto Selvaggio Regional Park, and right next to a very important archaeological site which the University of Lecce’s palaeontology department has been excavating for over three years (3).
The site in question is also subject to various planning restrictions (4). ICOS plc’s relentless persistence is closely linked to the fact that the company also owns the nearby ‘Torre Inserraglio’ residential complex (which, moreover, is situated right in the middle of the Torre Inserraglio Site of Community Importance).
In the summer of the year 2000, without any prior environmental impact assessment having been carried out, a section of cliffs near the beach serving the complex was excavated to create a cement slipway for boats. The complex, which is currently being extended, is in fact an insidious means of changing the whole area for ever.
A public committee has been set up in the Commune of Nardò comprising environmental associations, political parties and citizens opposed to the project in question because of the devastating effect it will have on the local environment.
In view of the foregoing:
Can the Commission ensure that impact assessment and analysis of the environmental effects is carried out to ensure the project complies with environmental impact assessment requirements?
Could the Commission state what measures it intends to take to ensure the protection of the Sites of Community Importance mentioned?
Could the Commission confirm whether the works involved in the construction of the Torre Inserraglio residential complex on the Site of Community Importance of the same name involved any breach of Community legislation on habitats (Directive 92/43/EEC) and on environmental impact assessment (Directive 97/11/EC (5))? C 340 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Could the Commission ascertain whether grounds exist for initiating the infringement procedure?
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (2) Established by ministerial decree of 12.12.1997. (3) Some months ago, the University officially requested development restrictions on archaeological grounds. The excavation work along the coast involved in the project would permanently jeopardise any research along the coastal strip which according to the University is expected to yield traces of human occupation going back to the early Neolithic period. The University of Lecce has already notified the archaeological protection authority in Taranto and the authorities responsible for environmental protection in Bari of its concerns. To date, however, it has received no reply. (4) Arising from L 1497/39 (now repealed and replaced by the single text containing legislative provisions relating to the protection of the cultural and environmental heritage pursuant to Article 1 of L 352/97, approved by legislative decree No 490 of 29.10.1999); restrictions arising from the general regulatory plan applicable to E2 zones; agricultural protected landscape zone; restrictions arising from exceptions to the general regulatory plan applicable to E4 zones, ecological protection zones. (5) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2001)
Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, provides for protection requirements with reference to Special Conservation Areas (SCA). Under Article 4, paragraph 5, of Directive 92/43/EEC these requirements are applied also to Sites of Community Importance (SCI) when, on the basis of the list of proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCI), they are adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 4 paragraph 2. At present, SCA have not been designated yet and the list of the SCI has not been adopted yet. However, with reference to proposed Sites of Community Importance, in particular when including priority habitat and species, Member States have certain obligations to act in a way so as to ensure that the aims of the Directive are not jeopardised. Even in the absence of a Community list, Member States’ authorities are advised to at least abstain from all activities that may cause a proposed site to deteriorate.
On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the area chosen for the marina to be built does not fall within any of the three proposed Sites of Community Importance IT9150013, IT9150007 and IT9150024. No likely effects on these sites have been identified. Therefore, in the absence of more information on how habitat and species may be affected by the project, no significant impact of the project on the sites mentioned can be presumed. In addition, it is not evident that the ‘excavation of the access canal’ falls within any pSCI.
Therefore, in the light of the information given by the Honourable Member and of the above mentioned legal regime presently in force for proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCIs), no evidence of any significant impact of the project on the proposed Sites of Community Importance IT9150013, IT9150007 and IT9150024 can be presumed.
The project mentioned by the Honourable Member appears to be a project of Annex II 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 modified by Directive 97/11/EC (2) (class 12 b Marínas). For projects listed in Annex II, the directive mentioned provides that Member States shall determine through a case-by- case examination, or thresholds or criteria, whether the project is to be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. This determination is called ‘screening’.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation of Regione Puglia (Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale 22 luglio 1997 No 4444 ‘Recepimento da parte della Regione Puglia del DPR 12.4.1996 in materia di VIA’) provides that marinas of any size are made the subject of an examination in order to determine whether they have to be made the subject of an EIA procedure. Therefore, Italian legislation ensures that marinas in Regione Puglia are made the subject of a screening. The obligation to carry out a ‘screening’ under Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified, with reference to marinas is well transposed in the specific case. When the internal law complies with Community law and no evidence is given to presume that it is going to be breached, the Commission considers that there are no grounds for intervention. In such cases, unless it is clearly claimed that, with reference to a specific project, the competent authorities have no intention to carry out a ‘screening’ or that they have failed to carry it out, the Commission is obliged to conclude that a breach cannot be presumed. Given the lack of specific grounds on complaint on the application of the EIA procedure to the specific case, no breach of the directive can be identified at present. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/145
As for the Torre Inserraglio residential complex (within the proposed Site of Community Importance IT9150024), no information is given on the date of construction or on its size. No information is given on the habitats or species likely to be affected by it. A cement slipway for boats is not covered by Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended. On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, with reference to the Torre Inserraglio residential complex, no evidence of a breach of Directives 92/43/EEC or 85/337/EEC, as modified, can be presumed.
Should the Commission be informed of relevant evidence that Community law is being breached in the specific case, it would not hesitate, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of relevant Community law.
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2001/C 340 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1010/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: EU support for Spain’s finest woodlands
The Los Alcornocales park, which is situated between the provinces of Cádiz and Málaga, has been voted Spain’s finest woodlands because it contains an abundance of flora which is more typical of a tropical climate than of a Mediterranean one, according to a poll of scientists and environmental specialists.
The park in question, a 170 000-hectare protected area with Natural Park status awarded in 1989 is home to the largest and finest collection of cork trees anywhere in Europe.
In view of the responsibility which the European Union may have in this area, could the Commission explain how it is involved both in the conservation of the park and in the implementation of environmental-improvement programmes within its boundaries? What action does the Commission intend to take in future in order to include the park within the scope of the Community initiatives designed to benefit Europe’s major natural parks?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(6 June 2001)
Spain has proposed the site called ‘Alcornocales’ as Site of Community Importance (SCI) to the Natura 2000 Network according to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) (hereafter Habitats Directive). It has also been proposed as Special Protected Areas for birds (SPA) according to article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/CEE of 2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild birds (2) (hereafter Birds Directive).
This vast extension (17 000 km2) of very well conserved land in the South of Spain hosts at least 21 Annex I bird species of the Birds Directive, some of them very threatened species. In this site there are 26 habitat types present of which five are priority habitats type identified by the Habitats Directive for special attention. It is remarkable that 36 % of its total territory is covered by Quercus suber (cork tree) forest. This forest, with all its associated species, is one of the most important Mediterranean forests in Europe.
The philosophy of Natura 2000 Network is to ensure that human activities are sustainable and not damaging to the conservation objectives for which the sites have been designated. C 340 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Habitats Directive obliges to the Member States ‘to take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive’ (article 6.2).
Sustainable management of forests, which concern this area and to which Spain is engaged under the decisions of the third ministerial Conference on the protection of forests in Europe (held in 1999) means that there is an obligation to protect biological diversity and landscapes and ensure renewable forestry resources.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2001/C 340 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1013/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: European digital literacy plan
In 2003, over 1,5 million jobs in new information technologies may remain unfilled. In order to prevent future shortages (and to alleviate current ones), all the EU Member States should make strenuous efforts to consolidate digital literacy in order to prevent what would constitute one of the major constraints on European economic development from arising.
In order to achieve a level of digital literacy which is comparable to the current level in the USA, the European Union will have to do its utmost to meet a challenge which it cannot ignore.
What has the Commission to say regarding the support which private initiatives may expect from relevant Community policy, which has an essential role to play in promoting and encouraging digital literacy amongst the largest possible number of working people in order to relieve the current (and, in all probability, future) shortage of skilled workers in the new information-technology sector?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(18 June 2001)
The public-private partnership in promoting the teaching of new technologies is, in the Commission’s view, a very important issue.
With this in mind, the Honourable Member should refer to the Commission’s answer to Mr Naranjo Escobar’s Written Question E-605/01 (1).
One example of the Commission’s commitment is the eLearning Summit (La Hulpe, 10/11 May 2001 (2)), organised at the initiative of leading companies in the multimedia and information and communication technology (ICT) sectors (IBM, Cisco Systems, Nokia, SanomaWSOY, SmartForce) in collaboration with the Commission. This included debates which brought together the public and private sectors with a view to developing a strategic programme of new models of public and private partnership to help develop eLearning.
The eLearning action plan is in line with the eEurope action plan, one of the latter’s priorities being to invest in people and knowledge. Progress made at national level in meeting the eEurope education and training objectives is monitored, and most of the objectives must be met by the end of 2002. This 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/147
approach is based on specific indicators which were approved by the Internal Market Council on 30 November 2000. Progress achieved in this area is subject to regular benchmarking using recognised evaluation instruments (Eurobarometer surveys and/or data provided by the Member States, for example by the ESDIS (3) (employment and social dimension of the information society) high-level group).
(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 86. (2) For further information, contact [email protected] or [email protected]. (3) http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/info_soc/esdis/index.htm.
(2001/C 340 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1016/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Publication of statistics in the US and EU
1. Will the Commission examine the forthcoming timetables of a group of leading international investment banks (e.g. Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, UBS, Deutsche Bank) for the listing of the statistics regularly published (quarterly or monthly) by United States agencies deemed to have an effect on the euro-dollar exchange rate (e.g. GDP growth, inflation, non-farm payrolls, etc.)?
2. Will it compile a matrix setting out the time delay between that US publication date and the period to which it refers, together with a further column indicating the euro area equivalent statistical series, if any, with the equivalent time delay between Eurostat publication and the period to which it refers?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(19 June 2001)
The Commission is fully aware of the importance attached by financial market operators to the release of infra-annual economic indicators (e.g. gross domestic products (GDP), inflation, employment, trade balance, etc.) in the Community and the United States. The Commission believes also that the comparative evolution of such indicators has an impact on the euro-dollar exchange rate and considers it of utmost importance that financial market operators are adequately informed.
A detailed analysis of the release of infra-annual economic statistics in the Community and United States will be made in the context of a report comparing Community and United States practices, which will be submitted in autumn 2001 to the Statistical Programme Committee (SPC). Such an analysis will, of course, contain a table matching Community and United States release dates for a comparable set of infra-annual economic indicators.
(2001/C 340 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1017/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Publication of economic statistics
1. Does the Commission agree that US practices in the publication of market-sensitive economic statistics are a proper benchmark for euro area practices?
2. Will it then indicate whether its objective is to match US practices and, if so, on what timescale and by what means? C 340 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(19 June 2001)
The Commission (Eurostat) is currently analysing American practices in the realm of market-sensitive economic statistics. A report comparing Community and American practices will be submitted in autumn 2001 to the Statistical Programme Committee (SPC). This report is expected to explain performance differentials and come up with recommendations for improving the performance of the Community system most notably in terms of timeliness. The SPC will discuss this report and its recommendations and take the necessary steps for improving the timeliness of economic statistics for the Community.
It should be noted that important actions are already under way in the framework of the ‘Action Plan on European Monetary Union (EMU) Statistical Requirements’ prepared by the Commission in close co- operation with the European Central Bank (ECB) at the request of the (Ecofin) Council. If it will be possible for the Community to meet American standards in terms of timeliness, however, remains to be seen given the fact that the Community and American statistical systems are very different. Moreover, American practices are not always considered to be superior to Community practices.
(2001/C 340 E/166) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1019/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Unemployment rate and pay settlements
Is the Commission able to find, or can it report on any independent findings about a relationship between the short-term unemployment rate (defined as those seeking work for less than one year) and the acceleration or deceleration of the growth of basic pay settlements in each EU Member State?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(13 June 2001)
In economic theory, labour demand depends negatively on the cost of labour. All other things equal, wage increases beyond productivity growth lead to a reduction of labour demand and employment and an increase in unemployment. Whenever unemployment is above (below) its equilibrium level, real wages should decrease (increase) in order to restore equilibrium. Empirically, the responsiveness of wages to the level of unemployment may differ considerably from Member State to Member State. A Commission contribution to this literature is notably Mc Morrow (1996) (1) who attributes slow employment growth in Europe as compared to the United States or Japan to sticky real wages.
The short-run Phillips curve (2) provides a framework for thinking about the dynamics of wages, inflation and the equilibrium rate of unemployment. However, one should be careful when interpreting estimated Phillips curves, since the confidence intervals of estimates are generally quite large.
As with most of the literature, these studies deal with unemployment in general, rather than with the narrower concept of short-term unemployment. Still, there is no reason to believe that results would change considerably if one applied the analysis to short-term unemployment.
To conclude, a brief look at the evidence would seem to suggest that a negative relationship exists between the (short-term) unemployment rate and wage settlements, but it is not possible to be precise about the quantification of this relationship.
(1) The Wage Formation Process and Labour Market Flexibility in the Community, the United States and Japan, Economic papers No 118. (2) For an overview, see e.g. OECD (2000): EMU one year on, Economics surveys, February. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/149
(2001/C 340 E/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1020/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Exports of goods and services
1. Will the Commission state which EU Member States currently provide a geographical analysis of their exports of goods and services?
2. For those Member States which do so, will the Commission provide the figures for the exports of goods and services in total and to the euro area and to the rest of the world respectively for the last ten years or, should that not be possible, for the longest period for which figures are available?
3. Will it further express such figures as a percentage of each country’s GDP for the period in question?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2001)
Nowadays in the framework of the Balance of Payments statistics, all Member States provide Eurostat balance of payments data with a Geographical breakdown of at least level-1 (World, 15 Member States (EU15), Extra-EU15, Canada, United States, Japan, World non allocated, Euro zone, Extra-euro zone). This data is necessary for the compilation of the European (EU15 and euro zone) balance of payments aggregates. Time series with geographical breakdown vis-à-vis intra-euro zone and extra-euro zone start from 1995 with reporters only the Member States of the euro zone (Ireland’s contribution starts from 1999). This implies that for Denmark, Greece, Sweden and the United Kingdom data with this geographical split (intra and extra euro zone) is not available. Time series with geographical breakdown vis-à-vis World, Intra-EU 15 and Extra-EU 15 start from 1992 with reporters all the Member States.
Eurostat is responsible for the compilation of the Balance of Payments (BoP) of the Community while the European Central Bank (ECB) is responsible for the compilation of the euro zone Balance of Payments aggregates. It has been decided by the ECB and the Member States that the contribution of Member States for the compilation of the euro zone BoP aggregates (intra-euro zone and extra-euro zone) should not be published. As ECB is solely responsible for these figures, they can only be directly requested from the ECB. The contribution of Member States for the compilation of EU 15 aggregates (world, intra-EU15 and Extra EU-15) is available at Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) upon request.
An Excel file with the available information is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
(2001/C 340 E/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1022/01 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Relations between India and Pakistan
The perverse decisions taken recently by the Afghan government have highlighted the permanently strained relations between India and Pakistan over the issue of Kashmir. Since border disputes between the two countries have remained unresolved for a number of decades and the neighbouring countries China and Afghanistan have been involved either directly or indirectly, the conflict between India and Pakistan has all the makings of a major international flashpoint. C 340 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
As the European Union is seeking to play a more important role on the international political scene and the two countries concerned are major trading partners, will the Commission say:
1. What is the state today of EU relations with India and Pakistan, respectively?
2. What agreements have been concluded between the European Union and India and Pakistan, respectively?
3. Has it ever raised the problem of Kashmir in its occasional discussions with these two countries?
4. Has it so far taken any initiatives to find a solution to the problem of Kashmir and, if not, does it intend to do so?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2001)
The Union has extensive relations with India. These were enhanced when both sides met for the first Summit in Lisbon in June 2000. A Joint Summit Declaration set out an ambitious ‘Agenda for Action’. Building on this momentum, regular fruitful and constructive meetings take place at all levels, from expert working groups to meetings of Foreign Ministers, dealing with the entire range of co-operation, be it in the fields of trade, commerce and development, or political dialogue, and implementing the Agenda for Action. The Member of the Commission responsible for External relations’s visit to India in January 2001 further emphasised the importance the Commission places in an enhanced partnership with India, and other Commission colleagues have visited subsequently. A further summit will take place in November 2000 in New Delhi.
The Community-India co-operation Agreement entered into force in 1994. It extends the partnership beyond trade and economic co-operation and underlines both sides joint commitment to respect for human rights, democratisation and the rule of law. The institutional basis for the political dialogue is a Joint Political Statement signed simultaneously with the Co-operation Agreement. It fixed annual ministerial meetings, and opened the door to a broad political dialogue.
Union relations with Pakistan have been restricted since the military take-over in Pakistan on 12 October 1999. This caused the Union to put on hold plans to sign a new Co-operation Agreement with Pakistan. The annual EU-Pakistan political dialogue was initially cancelled, but has in the meantime been re-launched on an ad-hoc basis. However, the Union wishes to see tangible progress towards restoration of representative democracy in Pakistan based on a clear and credible timetable and our relationship will continue to reflect progress on that front.
The Union regularly raises the subject of Kashmir in its contacts with the two countries.
The Union Heads of Delegation in New Delhi regularly visit Kashmir under an extended Troika format to assess the situation.
The Union encourages a peaceful solution of the Kashmir conflict, and has recently issued two declarations (8 and 28 December 2000) supporting first the Indian Ramadan cease-fire and then its extension, as well as the Pakistani response.
However, the Commission believes that Union involvement in the resolution of the problem would only be appropriate and possible if both India and Pakistan requested it. This is not currently the case and the Union has no plans at present for an initiative in this area. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/151
(2001/C 340 E/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1023/01 by Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (PPE-DE) and Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Water shortage in Thessaly
According to recent Greek press reports, Thessaly is suffering from an acute shortage of water. The present situation is extremely alarming and is characterised by a decline in rainfall, an increase in cultivated areas, overexploitation of ground water supplies and problems in replenishing supplies from these sources. Over the last few years rainfall in the region has declined by over 30 millimetres annually, while a large proportion of water in the Rivers Pinios, Enippea, Farsalitis and Titarisio flows into the sea and is thus lost to agriculture, work on the diversion of the upper Acheloos River has come to a standstill and the dams for gathering water are inadequate. The water-table is steadily falling every year, since 13 000 wells have been bored to find water at a great depth.
81 % of the total irrigated land 88 300 hectares is irrigated using underground water sources, the rest 20 700 hectares being irrigated with surface water. Moreover, 70 % of this total is irrigated from private wells and a mere 30 % from collective state projects. Furthermore, the increase in irrigated areas by 26 088,8 hectares over the last decade without the necessary land improvement schemes to accompany this increase and the imbalance of supply and demand mean that farmers with irrigated land in this region are facing serious problems.
Local community leaders, agronomists and farmers argue that the root of the crisis is mismanagement rather than an essential lack of water. They say the problem could be solved by using winter rainwater, transporting water from other regions and carrying out infrastructure work, such as dams, reservoirs, coated water channels and closed systems and at the same time pushing ahead as fast as possible with the projects on the Rivers Acheloos, Smokovo and Karla.
In view of the above, will the Commission say:
1. Is it aware of this state of affairs?
2. Are the measures in respect of the irrigation projects and specifically the diversion of the River Acheloos deemed eligible for funding?
3. Has it received proposals in this connection from the Greek State?
4. What action does it intend to take if it has received such proposals?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(28 May 2001)
The Commission is aware of the problem of the management of water resources in Greece, which seems particularly severe in the plain of Thessaly. During negotiation of the Community support framework (CSF) for the 2000-2006 programming period, the Commission considered these problems with the Greek authorities. Concrete measures and actions, including for example the rehabilitation of the former Lake Karla in Thessaly, were agreed and included in the CSF.
The Greek authorities submitted several proposals for the management of water and agricultural resources as part of the agricultural measures. Thus the new plan to reduce nitrates in the Thessaly plain will be extended to 35 100 ha under the agri-environmental measures (Chapter VI of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1)) thus covering a part of the area of the action plan for the ‘nitrates’ directive (Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of water against pollution by nitrates from agricultural (2) sources) originally planned to cover 500 000 ha. Moreover, the Thessaly regional operational programme for 2000-2006 provided for reparcelling and related work on approximately 4 100 ha, while it is also planned to complete work on using surface water (e.g. completion and development of the Agioneri and Panagiotiko dams and of the Smocovo tunnel, etc.). Any new operation will also have to comply with the C 340 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
principle of economic and sustainable water management and during implementation of the programme every care will be taken to regulate recourse to ground waters by boreholes and, if necessary, restrictive measures, or even bans, imposed on the digging and use of boreholes.
The diversion of the Acheloos river towards Thessaly is not part of this CSF and the Commission received no proposal for part-financing for it. Such a proposal was submitted in 1994 under the CSF for 1994- 1999 but lapsed because the Greek authorities took no further action on it. If this proposal were submitted again, the Commission would examine it in the light of the rules in force.
(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. (2) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.
(2001/C 340 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1033/01 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(3 April 2001)
Subject: Destruction of Maytenus sengalensis plants in the Artos del Ejido Site of Community Interest, Almería (Spain)
The Artos del Ejido area is located in Almería province (southern Spain) and it was declared a Site of Community Interest (SCI) on 26 January 2001 under the Habitats directive.
Despite the protection afforded by this directive, environmental associations, social organisations and political parties have condemned the actions of the El Ejido local authorities, who have been destroying the vegetation of the SCI since 19 January 2001. Fifty hectares (equivalent to 80 % of the SCI) have so far been destroyed.
The SCI hosts a most unusual ecosystem which is specially adapted to the semi-desert climate prevailing in the area and which is home to species protected under the Birds directive (e.g. the stone-curlew) and to valuable flora such as the Maytenus sengalensis, a plant which grows only in this protected area and in North Africa.
The local and regional authorities have so far done virtually nothing to prevent the ecosystem in question from being completely destroyed.
What action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that the Birds and Habitats directives are applied and that the environment, the flora and the fauna of the Artos del Ejido nature reserve are protected?
What action does it intend to take in order to restore the part of the SCI which has already been destroyed?
Can the Commission confirm whether or not the Andalusia Regional Government (the authority responsible) has received Community funds intended to protect the area concerned? If so, what EU programmes or funds are involved? Has the Commission determined whether or not the funds in question have been properly used? If they have not, will it seek financial compensation?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(17 May 2001)
The Commission was not aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member. However, it has checked that the area was proposed by Spain as a Site of Community Importance (SCI) ES 6110014 ‘Artos del Ejido’ for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network, under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). This area contains at least four of the habitat types listed in Annex I to the Directive, including two priority ones (*5220 Arborescent matorrals with ziziphus and 6220* Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals (Thero- Brachypodietea). 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/153
The species of bird mentioned by the complainant in the complaint attached to the written question the stone curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus) is covered by Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2).
The Commission will therefore contact the Spanish authorities shortly to ask for information on the situation reported, in order to ensure that Directive 92/43/EEC is being correctly applied in this case.
It would be premature to take a decision on restoring the area before the Spanish authorities’ reply has been received and examined by the Commission.
The Commission has asked the Spanish authorities whether the project in question received cofinancing under the Structural Funds and it will inform the Honourable Member of their reply.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2001/C 340 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1040/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(3 April 2001)
Subject: Spanish central government’s budget dogmatism, imposing a zero deficit by law on the state budget and on the budgets of the autonomous communities
Does the Commission consider it appropriate and necessary or legitimate, with a view to complying with the Stability and Growth Pact adopted by the Amsterdam European Council in 1997, that a government, in this case the Spanish government, should impose a zero deficit by law on the drawing-up of the state and autonomous community budgets, ignoring, in the latter case, their constitutionally guaranteed autonomy?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 2001)
Spain, as a member of the Monetary Union, has committed itself to respect a medium-term objective for the general government budgetary position of close to balance or in surplus. This objective was established in the ‘Stability and Growth Pact (1)’. It is broadly accepted that the achievement of this goal provides a stable macroeconomic framework on a sound basis and contributes to improve the medium-term prospects of the Spanish economy.
The Council Opinion on the January 2001 updated stability programme of Spain encouraged the continuation of fiscal consolidation and considered that the budgetary adjustment would be facilitated by its being shared by all levels of government.
However, the Commission does not advocate any specific form regarding the necessary internal co- ordination between the different general government sub-sectors so as to fulfil the objectives of the Stability and Growth Pact. This issue is for the decision of each Member State.
Likewise, the Commission cannot assess the constitutionality of the draft budget reform law (Law of Budgetary Stability) currently under discussion in the Spanish Parliament.
(1) OJ C 236, 2.8.1997. C 340 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1042/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(3 April 2001)
Subject: Bombing of Iraqi territory by US and United Kingdom planes
Does the Council consider the United Kingdom’s recent participation in the bombing of Iraqi territory, supporting the United States without the Union’s knowledge or agreement, to be compatible with membership of the European Union?
Reply
(16 July 2001)
The Council refers the Honourable Member to its answer to Question E-0699/01.
(2001/C 340 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1043/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(3 April 2001)
Subject: Commission strategy to encourage the mobility of EU workers in view of development and job- creation policies in the less-favoured areas
On the eve of the European Council meeting in Stockholm, Commission sources have said that labour mobility needs to be encouraged within the European Union in view of the shortage of workers in the new technology sectors, where the shortfall is currently put at 800 000 people and may reach 1,5 million in the coming years, according to the Employment and Social Affairs Commissioner, Anna Diamantopoulou.
Does the Commission not believe that seeking to resolve this problem simply through workers’ mobility rather than by promoting economic development and job creation in the less-favoured regions, which produce workers with a high level of technological training, would encourage undesirable migration to large urban areas, away from the remainder of European territory, which runs counter to the European Union’s stated regional and employment policy in favour of regions with the lowest per capita income?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(6 June 2001)
The purpose of the Commission’s strategy in facing up to the new European labour markets, as announced in its Communication of 28 February 2001 to the Council ‘New European labour markets, open to all, with access for all’ (1), and as presented to the Stockholm European Council, is to recognise the changes taking place on the European labour markets and to be proactive in supporting the development of skills and potential for geographic mobility. Skills shortages or bottlenecks in some sectors, and in particular in the Information and Communication technology (ICT) field, call for a long term strategy to develop the right human resources, but they can also be alleviated in the shorter term by an active mobility policy. The principle of free movement of workers is one of the basic rights enshrined in the EC treaty, but in practice several obstacles still prevent workers from exercising this right, and thus employers from recruiting from a wider European pool of labour. In order to prepare the groundwork for the Action Plan it has announced to make the European labour markets open to all and accessible for all by 2005, the Commission is setting up a High Level Task Force on Skills and Mobility which will report back by the end of this year. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/155
The Stockholm European Council agreed that the modernisation of labour markets and labour mobility needed to be encouraged to allow greater adaptability to change by breaking down existing barriers. To that end it agreed that the proposal for a Recommendation of the Parliament and of the Council on mobility within the Community for students, persons undergoing training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers (2) should be adopted by June 2001, and that Member States should implement in parallel the mobility action plan (agreed at the Nice European Council). It also agreed that the Commission would work with national and local governments, employment services and other relevant actors, to assess before the end of 2001 the feasibility of establishing a one-stop European mobility information site, in particular by providing employment services with a Europe-wide database on jobs, curricula vitae and learning opportunities. This commitment on developing a jobs and learning database (to be interconnected at European level) reiterates the European Council’s expectations in this regard expressed at Lisbon in March 2000, and which is already included in the Employment Guidelines for 2001 (3).
The development of the new labour markets, and the increased opportunities for workers to exercise their right to freedom of movement, must be seen as complementary to the efforts being made to support local economies and the creation of job opportunities in the less developed regions. The Community’s commitment in this direction is self-evident through the various Structural Funds, in particular for regional development, agricultural reform, employment and training, and infrastructure. Job opportunities are being created in regions which not only help the employment of local residents, but which may attract workers from other regions or Member States. In addition, in border regions, where employment pools are complementary, the reduction of obstacles to mobility will contribute to local development via increasing numbers of commuter workers.
(1) COM(2001) 116 final. (2) COM(1999) 708 final. (3) Council Decision 2001/63/EC of 19 January 2001 OJ L 22, 24.1.2001.
(2001/C 340 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1046/01
by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(3 April 2001)
Subject: Galicia’s integration in the trans-European transport networks by means of high-speed rail services
The Spanish central government, in agreement with the regional government of Galicia, which are both in the hands of the same political force, has submitted an access plan for high-speed trains to Galicia covering the period 2001-2007. However, the information available shows that the plan is not based on the approach required for trans-European high-speed rail networks, either in its general guidelines or in the technical solutions chosen. As well as failing to guarantee implementation in the period 2000-2007, the central government’s plan does not envisage the electrification of Galicia’s entire internal network, does not upgrade the main Atlantic line between Ferrol and Vigo or the Vigo-Oporto section linking Galicia to the Oporto-Lisbon mainline to a double track, and also makes no provision for a double track on the sections linking Santiago and Orense, Orense and Puebla de Sanabria and Monforte and Ponferrada. The project is designed more as a link between Galicia and Madrid, in the centre of the peninsula, than as a link between Galicia and the north of the peninsula, Portugal and the centre of Europe, which is what Galician society and the Galician economy need and would reflect the thinking behind the TETNs. Moreover, the state budget estimates for the 2000-2004 term do not include any appropriations earmarked for this plan.
Is the Commission aware of these discriminatory projects? Will the Commission demand that the Spanish government use European funds in accordance with the European Union’s objectives of regional balance and social cohesion, thus promoting Galicia’s integration in the trans-European high-speed rail networks in the period 2000-2007? C 340 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(6 June 2001)
According to the information in the Commission’s possession the cooperation agreement concluded between, in particular, the Spanish Minister of Equipment and the Government of Galicia for the purpose of improving the railway network is aimed at the network within Galicia.
The Commission feels that it would be useful to point out once more that it is Parliament and Council Decision No 1692/96 of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans- European transport network (1) which sets out the terms of reference, at European level, for expanding that network. The latter thus consists of a high-speed railway network comprising new lines to be built and existing lines to be upgraded, together with a conventional railway network generally consisting of existing lines. The Santiago-Ourense section forms part of the conventional railway network, whereas the Monforte-Ponferrada section has been entered as lines to be upgraded for high speed. The abovementioned decision does not however specify the number of tracks nor requires that the conventional railway network be electrified. Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the high- speed trans-European railway system applies to the high-speed railway network (2).
The decision referred to above also identifies a list of specific projects. However, on 24 April 2001 Parliament and the Council adopted an amendment to that decision relating, inter alia, to that list. That amendment will replace project No 8 by the projected multi-modal link between Portugal and Spain consisting, in particular, of the A Coruña-Lisbon corridor, the latter including conventional sections between Vigo and Oporto and Ferrol and Vigo. That amendment thus represents a new political support at Community level for developing the railway route linking Galicia with the Oporto-Lisbon route referred to by the Honourable Member.
The Commission feels, as regards the aims concerning territorial balance and economic and social cohesion that, if account is taken of the trans-European road network linking Galicia with the other regions, all of the provisions set out in the Community decision referred to above relating to that region should help significantly to improve the links between Galicia and the other regions. It should be borne in mind as regards the use of Community financial assistance that decisions to grant Community funding are taken in accordance with the rules applying to each individual financial instrument.
(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996. (2) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.
(2001/C 340 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1051/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(5 April 2001)
Subject: Transfer of footballers Free movement of persons
Can the Commission state whether it still maintains the position taken by Commissioner Diamantopouloul in her answer of 19 December 2000 to my Written Question E-3535/00 (1), when she said that ‘the Community law provisions on the free movement of workers apply to all Union citizens who have reached the minimum age fixed by the host Member State for access to its labour market, including sports activities, given the recent settlement of the transfer issue’ which clearly discriminates on grounds of age. Would the Commission accept similar discrimination in other industries?
(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 187. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/157
Answer givern by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (18 June 2001)
The Commission maintains its position, as set out in its answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-3535/00, that Community law provisions on free movement of workers apply to all Union citizens who have reached the minimum age fixed by the host Member State for access to its labour market, including sports activities.
This was reflected in the outcome of the discussions between the Commission and International Federation of Football Associations/Union of European Football Associations (FIFA/UEFA) where it was stated that international transfers of players aged under 18 will be allowed subject to certain conditions aimed at ensuring their protection. It should be recalled that FIFA/UEFA were, at first, in favour of prohibiting such transfers.
The difference in the treatment of football players according to their age as regards payment of compensation for their training costs is a different matter linked to the estimated duration of effective training.
(2001/C 340 E/176) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1052/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (5 April 2001)
Subject: Transfer of footballers Merchandising
Can the Commission confirm that the ‘loss of merchandising income’ will not be a factor in determining the level of compensation paid in ‘transfer fees’?
(2001/C 340 E/177) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1053/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (5 April 2001)
Subject: Transfer of footballers Training costs
Can the Commission indicate the likely maximum figures, in current prices, that can be justified in terms of annual costs for training footballers?
(2001/C 340 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1054/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (5 April 2001)
Subject: Transfer of footballers Solidarity fund
Can the Commission indicate the estimates it has made on the scale of this fund and its allocation scheme?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1052/01, E-1053/01 and E-1054/01 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (28 May 2001)
On 5 March 2001, International Federation for Football Associations (FIFA) submitted an undertaking to change its rules as regards international transfers of football players. According to the general principles of C 340 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
the undertaking, it is FIFA’s responsibility to implement inter alia a system of training compensation in case of players aged under 23 that encourages and rewards the training efforts of clubs, in particular, small and amateur clubs without limiting freedom of movement of players in a disproportionate way. FIFA will also implement solidarity mechanisms that would redistribute a significant proportion of income to clubs involved in the training and education of a player, including amateur clubs.
The Commission has always been supportive of the principle of a solidarity fund to be used to promote training of young players and to reduce the gap between big and small clubs or between amateur and professional football.
At this stage, no detailed figures or estimates have been provided to the Commission.
As regards merchandising, according to the general principles of FIFA’s undertaking to change its rules, the loss of merchandising income is not a criterion that can be considered in calculating a training fee. As far as compensation for unilateral breach of a contract is concerned the question is primarily to be answered on the basis of the national law applicable.
FIFA has undertaken that after two seasons experience there will be a general review of the new arrangements.
(2001/C 340 E/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1056/01 by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission (5 April 2001)
Subject: Common fisheries policy Sea angling
Sea angling is not only a sport, it also provides employment and makes a significant contribution to regional economies. Could the Commission state what plans it has to give greater recognition and support to this sector of the fishing industry within the context of the common fisheries policy?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 May 2001)
The Commission has at present no plans directed specifically at sea angling.
However, the Commission is at present in the process of formulating recovery plans for hake and cod in Community waters. These plans should also be of consequent benefit to other major fish stocks including haddock, whiting and saithe. If successful, the ensuing increased abundance of these fish stocks will offer increased opportunities for sea angling.
The Commission is also awaiting a report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea on the state of stocks of bass in Community waters and suggestions on means to solve existing problems. The Commission will act as required on this report.
(2001/C 340 E/180) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1061/01 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba (TDI) to the Commission (5 April 2001)
Subject: Reduction in JRC research staff under the proposal for the Sixth framework programme
Given that: The Joint Research Centre (JRC) takes the form of a Directorate-General within the Commission and is made up of eight specialised institutes located in five EU Member States. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/159
Under the Fifth R & TD framework programme (Fifth FP), the JRC’s role has been focused more closely on its activities as an independent scientific and technical body working to further EU policies.
Following this reorganisation, during the Fifth FP the results of the JRC’s work have been extremely encouraging and are of direct use in Community policies, including as they do the tests now used throughout Europe for BSE, methods to detect genetically modified organisms in food, the migration of phthalates in toys, the characterisation of pollutant emissions, the development of standards for mine-clearance technology and the extension of nuclear safety codes to the applicant countries.
In the Commission proposal for the Sixth FP (2002-2006), despite an increase in the overall budgetary package with respect to the Fifth FP, the appropriations allocated to the JRC are down in real terms. There is a an even more marked reduction both in percentage terms and as an overall figure in appropriations for non-nuclear activities, which would fall from € 725 million to € 719 million.
Under the Fifth FP the JRC has an establishment plan of 2 080 staff, to which must be added its non- permanent staff (visiting scientists, experts and trainees).
Given the above, would the Commission:
provide details of the implications which the above reduction would have for the JRC staff, and of the number of Commission research posts which would be converted into posts for officials responsible for managing research contracts;
explain why the Commission has decided to penalise its own research activities in comparison to outside research, thus reducing the EU’s capacity to carry out independent research work?
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2001)
The mission of the Joint Reseach Centre (JRC), adopted by Council and Parliament in 1999 (1), is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of Community policies. It serves the common interest of the Member States while being independent of particular private or national interests.
Therefore, the JRC is a research establishment not dedicated to research policy but acting as a European scientific and technical reference centre for other Community policies (environment, agriculture, transport, energy, nuclear).
In the context of its mission, the Commission has been seeking to ensure that the JRC should not duplicate or compete with national research bodies, but rather that it should concentrate on issues where there are real needs in the European policy-making processes and which require action at European level. These are issues examined by the High Level Panel presided by Viscount Davignon, whose report was published in May 2000.
In the light of the Davignon report, and as part of the Commission’s policy to achieve a better balance between its resources and core tasks, the JRC was asked to analyse a possible reduction of activities and further concentration on key priorities. The Commission has proposed to the Budgetary Authority a reduction of 175 posts in the JRC staff table from 2002. As a consequence a number of projects will be stopped and staff will be re-deployed. The new staff table will constitute the basis for the proposed activities for the JRC in the next framework programme.
To respond more efficiently to policy needs, via a broader knowledge base, the JRC will also seek to network more effectively with national research centres in the spirit of the European Research Area.
The objective of increasing efficiency, working on a broader framework of co-operation with national entities, and keeping close links with all actors in the decision-making process, including the Parliament, are designed to allow the JRC to be fully involved in the European Research Area and to continue to fulfil its mission on a long term basis. C 340 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
In pursuing its mission, the JRC will concentrate its activities on a limited number of key issues related to the safety and security of the European citizen where it has specific competence and can offer a strengthened user-orientation. The JRC’s budget proposed for the next framework programme for support for Community policies is € 715 million and the budget for the Euratom activities is € 330 million.
(1) COM(2000) 366 final.
(2001/C 340 E/181) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(5 April 2001)
Subject: Coordination of the Sensus project
Coordination of the Sensus project is in the hands of a certain Stephan Bodenkamp. Officially he is employed by the Amt für Auslandsfragen in Munich. A ruling from a Munich court (20 December 2000) shows that Bodenkamp’s real name is Christoph Kionowski and that he is an agent of the German state security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, although apparently he has now been suspended.
1. Is the Council aware that coordination of the Sensus project is in the hands of Stephan Bodenkamp/ Christoph Kionowski, an agent of the German state security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If so, does the Council support this choice of coordinator of the Sensus project?
2. Will the Council ask the Commission to relieve Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski of coordination of the Sensus project since he is an agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If not, why does the Council continue to support the Commission’s decision to entrust him with coordination of the project?
3. Will the Council ask the Commission to relieve Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski of coordination of the Sensus project in view of his sentencing by a Munich court for forging a contract with a German technology firm in the context of the Sensus project? If not, why does the Council support the Commission’s decision to nevertheless entrust him with coordination of the project?
4. Will the Council ask the Commission to relieve Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski of coordination of the Sensus project in view of his suspension by the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If not, why does the Council continue to support the Commission’s decision to nevertheless entrust him with coordination of the project?
(2001/C 340 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(9 April 2001)
Subject: Blurring of interests and distortion of competition with the Sensus project
The Sensus project, the successor to Aventinus, seeks to develop an information exchange programme for the European police and intelligence services. The search for interesting language technology is an important part of this project. Sensus is subsidised by the Commission. The reply to Question P-0009/01 (1) shows that Sensus and Aventinus I and II have been financed from budget line B6-6121 113 of the telematics applications programme (1994-1998). A maximum contribution of € 2 500 000 was approved for Aventinus I, and of this € 2 341 190 was applied for and paid. A maximum contribution of € 550 000 was approved for Aventinus II, of which his € 513 777 was applied for and paid. A maximum contribution of € 2 250 000 was approved for Sensus, of which € 478 753 was paid on 31 December 2000. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/161
Coordination of Sensus is in the hands of Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski, a secret agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst. He is also behind three language Development Companies of Lernout & Haspie (L & H). Thanks to his dual role, the Bundesnachrichtendienst can have access to L & H’s language technology. It is immediately apparent that the Sensus-Bundesnachrichtendienst-L & H set-up results in (a) a dubious blurring of interests between the private and the ‘public sector’, (b) an imbalance in the language technology know-how of the various police and security services and (c) unfair competition between those language technology firms which are involved in Sensus and those which are not.
1. Does the Council acknowledge that the dual role of the Sensus coordinator leads to a blurring of interests between the public and the ‘private’ sector (in this case the Bundesnachrichtendienst)? If not, what guarantees does the Council have that the set-up referred to above has not resulted in this blurring?
2. Does the Council acknowledge that the dual role of the Sensus coordinator has led to an imbalance in the language technology know-how of the various police and security services, in particular in favour of the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If not, what guarantees does the Council have that the set-up referred to above has not resulted in this imbalance?
3. Does the Council acknowledge that the dual role of the Sensus coordinator has led to unfair competition between those language technology firms which are involved in Sensus and those which are not? If not, what guarantees does the Council have that the set-up referred to above has not resulted in unfair competition?
(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154.
(2001/C 340 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1083/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(9 April 2001)
Subject: The Sensus project: the European equivalent of DARPA
The Sensus project, the successor to Aventinus, seeks to develop an information exchange programme for European police and intelligence services by analogy with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Coordination of Sensus is in the hands of Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski, a secret agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst. DARPA, a government body, coordinates the research and development programmes of the American Department of Defense.
Two language technology laboratories appear to play a crucial role in DARPA and the Sensus project. Dragon has developed translation technology for US intelligence services and it has cooperated in the Multilingual Interview System (MIS). This system was intended for automatic translation of Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian interviews in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Spring 1998) and of Arabic, Farsi, Hindi and Urdu in the Persian Gulf (Summer 1998). Via its subsidiary Sail Labs, formerly Gesellschaft für Multilingual Systeme mbH, Lernout & Haspie (L & H) was closely involved in the European Sensus project. To complete the picture it should be pointed out that L & H took party in DARPA’s ‘Dominate the Battlespace’ project in 1997.
Inspired by the MIS success of its rival Dragon, L & H has set up a number of so-called Language Development Companies to develop language technology in Hindi, Farsi, Arabic and Urdu. Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski, secret agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst and coordinator of the Sensus project, set up three Language Development Companies. In early 2000 L & H took over Dragon. The US National Security Agency was strongly opposed to this take-over because of the strategic and sensitive technology which came into the possession of the European group.
Is the Council aware of the National Security Agency’s opposition to L & H’s take-over of Dragon, given the possible impact of the American attitude on the Sensus project, because of (a) the participation of L & H subsidiary Sail Labs and (b) the shareholdings of Sensus coordinator Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph C 340 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Kionowski in three Language Development Companies? If not, will the Council seek information about the National Security Council’s attitude towards L & H’s take-over of Dragon, in view of the possible impact this attitude might have on the Sensus project?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1064/01, E-1081/01 and E-1083/01 (16 July 2001)
The events mentioned in the three Questions E-1064/01, E-1081/01, E-1083/01 are not within the competence of the Council of the European Union.
(2001/C 340 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1069/01 by Harlem Désir (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 2001)
Subject: Infringement of Directive 91/308/EC on prevention of the use of the financial system for money laundering
What action does the Commission intend to take to investigate the facts presented in the book ‘Révélation$’, published by Les Arènes in March 2001 in France, on serious breaches of Community legislation, in particular the June 1991 Directive 91/308/EC (1) on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering?
What action is the Commission going to take in view of that fact that a third-country company implicated in the embezzlement of IMF funds in Russia, Menatep, would appear to have been able to open an unpublished account at the Luxembourg-based clearing house Clearstream, as have other third-country banking establishments, e.g. Banque Colombienne? It would appear that sums far in excess of the ceiling indicated in Article 3 of Directive 91/308/EC have been transferred to Clearstream accounts from establishments offering no guarantees, without raising suspicions, and that transfers have been made to offshore centres regarded as uncooperative by the OECD.
(1) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (2 May 2001)
The Commission is responsible for checking that Community directives are correctly incorporated into national law by the Member States and correctly applied by national public authorities. However, it is up to the national authorities in the Member States to check that national legislation implementing a directive is correctly applied by individuals and firms.
Luxembourg has correctly incorporated into its national law Directive 91/308/EC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system, the purpose of money laundering and, as far as the Commission is aware, the Luxembourg authorities are applying it extensively and correctly. They are taking account, inter alia, of the requirements of combating corruption and consider this crime to underlie money laundering. In particular, pending ratification of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention on combating corruption of foreign officials in international trans- actions, they have taken the necessary steps to ensure that Luxembourg’s financial system effectively applies measures to combat such crime.
In these circumstances, the Commission has at present no reason to think that the Luxembourg authorities are not taking tough action if, in the case cited by the Honourable Member, they consider it necessary to conduct an in-depth investigation. However, in exercising its prerogatives, the Commission will not fail to ensure that Community law is applied correctly and to take any measures that may be necessary for this purpose. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/163
(2001/C 340 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1073/01
by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(5 April 2001)
Subject: Construction of Olympic Games facilities at Marathon Schinias
The Academy of Athens has announced that it has requested the personal intervention of the Greek Prime Minister, Mr Simitis, to prevent the construction of an Olympic rowing centre at the historic site of Marathon. The Academy reports that it had already written to Mr Simitis on 26 January 2001 explaining the reasons why construction of the rowing centre in the Marathon Schinias area should be cancelled. The historic site is under threat of destruction, while the same fate awaits the ecologically fragile area of the Schinias wetland, which has also been pointed out by a number of environmental organisations, including WWF-Hellas.
What is the Commission’s official position on this entire matter and in what way might it intercede with the Greek Government, which appears determined to proceed with the project, despite protests from within Greece and abroad, as evidenced by the statement issued by Cambridge University’s Department of Classical Studies calling for respect for the remains of mankind’s past in this particularly fragile area?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(22 June 2001)
As concerns the environmental aspects of the project raised by the Honourable Members, a complaint has been lodged with the Commission dealing in particular with the implications of the planned rowing and canoeing centre on the conservation interests of the Schinias area.
The Schinias marshes have not been proposed by Greece under either the Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1)) or the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2)), for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. However, given that the site has been included in relevant scientific reference lists, the Commission has contacted the Greek authorities in the context of the aforementioned complaint, asking for specific information on this planned Olympic project. The Commission seeks to ensure the compatibility of the planned development with the conservation value of the site.
In their reply to Commission enquiries, the Greek authorities stress the overall beneficial effects of the planned development, associated with the establishment of a national park on the area. Further to this reply and in the light of additional information brought to Commission’s attention, the Commission recently carried out an on-the-spot appraisal of the situation. Information gathered is currently under evaluation in order for the Commission to decide on the follow-up to be given to this matter.
As regards the cultural aspects of this site, Article 151 (former Article 128) of the EC Treaty confers powers upon it to encourage the Member States to cooperate on cultural matters. The question raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the Community’s powers but, owing to the principle of subsidiarity, falls solely within the powers of the Member State (concerned).
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. C 340 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1074/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council
(5 April 2001)
Subject: Forced labour in Burma
Is the Council aware of the use of forced labour in Burma? If so, what steps does it intend to take to remedy this situation?
Reply
(16 July 2001)
The Council shares international abhorrence at the practice of forced labour in Burma, a practice which it fears has not yet ended. As the Honourable Member will recall, the European Community suspended GSP privileges in 1997 as a result of this practice. The Council has also of course taken a number of other measures over the last four years, set out in its Common Position, in response to the political situation in Burma/Myanmar.
The Council fully supported the resolution of the International Labour Conference adopted in June 2000, and welcomed the entry into force of the measures recommended by the resolution on 30 November 2000, following the meeting of the ILO Governing Body.
Governments of Member States have been discussing how best to give effect to the recommendations contained in the resolution with their social partners. They, as well as the Commission, have also reported on these efforts to the Director-General of the ILO.
The Council recognise that the Government of Burma/Myanmar has taken certain measures aimed at ending the practice of forced labour. Forced labour needs, however, to be outlawed legally, ended in practice, and any continuing practitioners punished. The Council is monitoring the situation closely and, should the authorities in Burma/Myanmar fail to take the necessary steps in this respect, the Council stands ready to take further measures.
The Council made clear its concerns regarding forced labour during the visit of the EU Troika mission to Burma/Myanmar in January 2001. It expects that the question will continue to be considered by the ILO/ ILC and also by Ecosoc. It sincerely hopes that contacts will be renewed between the ILO and Burma/ Myanmar and that an ILO presence may be established in the country in order to verify a definitive end to the practice of forced labour.
(2001/C 340 E/187) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1075/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council
(5 April 2001)
Subject: Allegations of police brutality in the Czech Republic
Is the Council aware of the allegations of police brutality in the Czech Republic during the meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Prague in September 2000? Following the violation of the rights of the people detained after the protests, what does the Council intend to do to ensure that the Czech Republic investigates all complaints of torture and ill-treatment in an impartial manner? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/165
Reply
(16 July 2001)
The Council has received no specific information concerning allegations of police brutality in the Czech republic during the meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Prague in September 2000.
The Council attaches the utmost importance to the respect, by the candidate countries, of the principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. With regard to the Czech Republic, the Council notes that the Commission’s 2000 Regular Report on the Czech Republic’s progress towards accession concluded that the country continued to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. It can be noted in particular that the Czech Republic has continued to develop its internal institutional framework in the field of human rights by following the establishment in 1998 of a Human Rights Commissioner with the creation in February 2000 of the office of the Public Protector of Rights (Ombudsman), who is empowered to deal with a range of matters including complaints concerning the police.
If it turns out that there has been a violation of the fundamental principles mentioned above then the appropriate representations to the Czech Republic, particularly within the framework of the bodies established by the Europe Agreement, could be envisaged.
(2001/C 340 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1076/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council
(5 April 2001)
Subject: Repression of peaceful activists in Indonesia
The Indonesian security forces are currently intensifying their repressive approach towards peaceful political activists, particularly in outlying regions such as Aceh and Papua. many of these activists are being silenced by being kept behind prison bars. What does the Council intend to do to ensure that these people benefit from a fair trial which respects international standards?
Reply
(20 July 2001)
As the Honourable Member may know, the Union recently raised similar concerns to his own at the UN Commission of Human Rights in Geneva. The EU noted continued disappearances, arbitrary detentions, extra-judicial executions and torture, particularly in Aceh and Irian Jaya. It expressed particular concern about the imprisonment of individuals who strive for autonomy in a peaceful manner, and called for their immediate release.
(2001/C 340 E/189) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1077/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council
(5 April 2001)
Subject: Human rights in Iran
The recent arrests in Iran of non-violent opposition groups who collaborate in an informal religious- nationalist alliance calls into question whether or not Iranians are able to exercise their basic rights. What steps does the Council intend to take to make its views known on this issue? C 340 E/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Reply
(16 July 2001)
The EU has most recently made clear its concerns about the human rights situation in Iran by tabling a draft resolution on Iran also at this year’s session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (adopted on 20 April 2001). Human rights feature prominently in the political dialogue meetings between the EU and Iran which are held twice a year. The EU will continue to raise these issues in its direct contacts with Iranian authorities.
(2001/C 340 E/190) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1078/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(5 April 2001)
Subject: Plight of the Turkish Kurds
What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure respect for the human rights of the Turkish Kurds, with particular regard to Turkey’s wish to accede to the EU?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 2001)
The Accession Partnership (AP) with Turkey adopted on 8 March 2001 (1) sets out the priorities for Turkey in her efforts to make progress towards meeting all of the Copenhagen political criteria. The AP indicates that Turkey should, in the short term, strengthen legal and constitutional guarantees for the right to freedom of expression in line with article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and, in the medium term, should guarantee full enjoyment by all individuals without any discrimination and irrespective of their language, race, colour, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief or religion of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The Commission welcomes the adoption, on 19 March 2001, of the National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA) by the Turkish Government. The Commission considers this document as an important step and the first stage in a far-reaching programme of political reform in Turkey. With regard to the political criteria for Union membership further efforts should be undertaken in areas such as ensuring cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin as mentioned by the Honourable Member.
(1) OJ L 85, 24.3.2001.
(2001/C 340 E/191) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1079/01 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(6 April 2001)
Subject: Commercial action for the storage of umbilical cord blood for obtaining stem cells
In the Netherlands, and several other Member states, there is a commercial organisation called CRYO-Cell (website: www.cryoc.com) which asks prospective parents to agree to blood from the foetal umbilical cord or from the placenta to be frozen for a period of 20 years. The intention is that the blood should subsequently be used to cure illnesses such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, brain haemorrhages, muscular problems such as multiple sclerosis, malignant tumours and diabetes. The risk of children suffering from these illnesses in the first 20 years of their lives is low. Furthermore, with progress in medical science it is 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/167
theoretically possible for the diseases in question most of which occur in the elderly to be properly treated, if not cured, even without storage of the stem cells. The firm pays NLG 2 170 (ca. € 983) for storage, removal, transport and processing of the stem cells. The campaign plays on the concern of prospective parents to prevent illness, and the fear of death.
The Commission:
1. Can it say whether this firm, or comparable commercial organisations, operates in other Member States, too, and under what conditions (costs, payments etc.)?
2. What is its view of the potentially misleading nature of offers such as those made by CRYO-Cell?
3. Will it submit this matter to the European ethics committee for an opinion on the desirability of such companies?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(8 May 2001)
The Commission has no information on the existence of comparable commercial organisations in the Community.
No Community legislation currently exists on this type of service. It falls to the Member States to deal with the problem.
Opinion No 15 on ethical aspects of human stem cell research published in November 2000 by the European Group on Ethics (EGE) mentions, by way of information, the existence of umbilical cord blood banks for the treatment of leukaemia or aplastic anaemia after chemotherapy, and the possibility of systematically retrieving cells from the umbilical cord blood at birth and freezing them in order to have autologous stem cells available in case of later need. However, in its opinion No 15 the group did not address the ethical aspects specific to this type of activity.
Under the revised remit of the EGE adopted by the Commission on 26 March 2001, and especially Article 2 thereof, Parliament may draw the Commission’s attention to matters that it considers ought to be referred to the EGE.
(2001/C 340 E/192) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1087/01 by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission
(26 March 2001)
Subject: Discharge of pesticides and the sixth environment action programme
In its sixth environment action programme, the Commission highlights the fact that 65 % of the drinking water in Europe comes from groundwater, which should be viewed in the light of the steadily increasing level of pollution of groundwater by pesticides throughout Europe. The Commission’s objective in this field is to achieve a situation in which the concentration of pesticides in our surroundings do not entail significant risks to or impacts on human health and the environment. To achieve that goal, according to the Commission, the risk involved in the use of pesticides must be reduced.
What specific targets, including deadlines and maximum values for residue concentrations, is the Commission working towards to put an end to pesticide pollution of ground water?
In the Commission’s view, what constitutes significant risks to or impacts on human health and the environment, and what practical steps will the Commission take to minimise the risk involved in and ensure better control of the use of pesticides? C 340 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
What, in specific terms, does a revision of Directive 91/414 (1) concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market entail, and how is that in keeping with the Commission’s objectives?
(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(31 May 2001)
On water protection policy, the Community has just finalised a thorough review, by adopting in October 2000 the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (1). This Directive sets the legally binding objective that all waters including groundwaters have to achieve good status within a set deadline of 15 years at the latest. Such ‘good status’ is further defined as being in compliance with quality standards applicable under other relevant Community legislation.
Tools for achieving such good status are programmes of measures to be established and implemented in a legally binding way, in order to achieve the defined target within the deadline. Those programmes of measures have to follow a combined approach of addressing pollution at the source (emission control) and quality standards for water. The programmes are complementary to existing Community legislation relevant for water protection, including the Plant Protection Directive 91/414/EEC (2), without of course changing their already set implementation deadlines.
The Commission is currently preparing a report to the Parliament and Council on Directive 91/414/EEC where this issue will be addressed.
For particularly hazardous substances a ‘phasing out’ is foreseen within a maximum time frame of 2020, i.e. a cessation of discharges, emissions and losses. Details are to be addressed by specific measures as foreseen in Article 16 of the Water Framework Directive. The Commission has already presented to the Parliament and Council the list of ‘priority hazardous substances’ including the substances to be phased out (3). Amongst those substances to be phased out is one pesticide (lindane) where a Commission Decision to withdraw all plant protection uses from the market was taken last December (4), others are under a re- evaluation process at EU level.
However, meeting maximum admissible quality standards for groundwater is not sufficient. This is why the Water Framework Directive aims at preventing any upward trends of groundwater pollution, be it by pesticides or other pollutants. Details have to be addressed by specific measures as foreseen in Article 17 of the Water Framework Directive, and the Commission is obliged to present to the Parliament and Council a Proposal for a Daughter Directive on Groundwater Protection by December 2002.
Moreover the Commission is currently preparing a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides.
(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000. (2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991. (3) COM(2001) 17 final. (4) OJ L 324, 21.12.2000.
(2001/C 340 E/193) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1092/01 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(6 April 2001)
Subject: Licensing of SSB radio equipment
According to the ‘Nederlands Staatscourant’ (Netherlands Official Gazette) No 236, the sale and use of AM/ FM/SSB/CB radio equipment is authorised in the Netherlands with effect from 1 March. The authorisation will cover 40-channel sets with AM, FM and SSB modulation. The maximum output power will be 4 Watts. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/169
We are not as yet in possession of any further information. What will the effects of this be on the Austrian market, Austrian manufacturers and Austrian consumers?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2001)
The regulations in the Community on the use of the Citizens Band (CB) have not been harmonised and vary amongst Member States both in the amount of allocated channels and on the modulation techniques, which are allowed in the frequency band.
The Commission is of the opinion, that the changes in the regulations in the Netherlands will not have negative consequences for Austrian citizens or manufacturers. The regulations have become less restrictive on the modulation techniques that are allowed implying that Austrian manufacturers can continue to market their products in the Netherlands without modification and will have a larger market for equipment with Amplitude Modulation (AM) and Single Side Band (SSB) modulation. Austrian visitors can continue to use their CB equipment in the Netherlands under the same conditions as before.
The Commission is aware of the fact, that Austria does not allow SSB transmissions in the CB band and might fear increased interference from Dutch citizens travelling to Austria and using their CB equipment in SSB mode. This risk exists but is not unique to equipment designed for operation in the frequency spectrum of the Netherlands. Such interference can also be caused by equipment designed for spectrums of other Member States, which are not compatible with the Austrian frequency spectrum. As an example it is probably known to the Honourable Member that Germany has allocated 40 channels to the CB which are not available in Austria, whereas SSB is also allowed in some other Member States.
The use of SSB or the operation in non-allocated frequency bands in Austria would be illegal. Since tourists can travel into Austria without being checked at the borders, it is impossible to physically prevent CB equipment from entering Austria. It is imperative that users are informed of any restrictions of use of their CB equipment within the Community. The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (1), which obliges manufacturers to inform users of such restrictions on the packaging and in the users manual. These provisions will limit the illegal use of CB equipment in Austria.
Only by harmonising the use of the radio frequency spectrum in and beyond the Community can these problems be completely avoided. The Commission has brought the issue of CB to the attention of the Member States and to the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications administrations (CEPT), which are responsible for taking decisions on the harmonisation of the use of radio frequencies. However, the CEPT, which comprises the Member States and 27 other European countries, has not concluded on the matter. Subject to the adoption of the Commission’s proposal for a Radio Spectrum Decision (2), which is currently under negotiation in the Council and in the European Parliament, further Community action on the issue can be considered.
(1) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999. (2) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.
(2001/C 340 E/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1097/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(6 April 2001)
Subject: Violation of European Treaties by UEFA rules
The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) prohibits clubs which are financially linked from playing against each other in UEFA matches (the cup-winners’ cup and champions’ league). Ajax and Germinal Beerschot Antwerp are likely to become the first victims of this ban. On Tuesday, 16 May 2000 the Dutch club bought a majority holding of 51 % in the Antwerp club. C 340 E/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
In answer to Question P-0357/01 (1), the Commission refers to the rules governing ‘the integrity of UEFA competitions for club teams: clubs’ independence’, approved by UEFA in 1998, which according to UEFA itself are intended to protect the sporting integrity of club competitions. The Commission is currently investigating whether or not this measure falls outside the ban instituted by Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. The Commission says that no final position has yet been adopted.
1. Has the Commission now adopted a final position on the rules governing ‘the integrity of UEFA competitions for club teams: clubs’ independence’, approved by UEFA in 1998? If so, what is the Commission’s final position? If not, when will the Commission announce its final position?
2. On what legal grounds does the Commission assert that the rules governing ‘the integrity of UEFA competitions for club teams: clubs’ independence’, approved by UEFA in 1998, either do or do not comply with Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty?
(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 185.
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2001)
The Commission refers to its reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-0357/01.
The Commission has not yet adopted a definitive position on the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) rules governing ‘the protection of integrity of the UEFA club competitions’.
The Commission will publicly announce its definitive position as soon as possible.
(2001/C 340 E/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1101/01 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission
(6 April 2001)
Subject: The need for a level playing field in the road haulage industry
Given that UK HGVs are subject to safety checks every six weeks, why are vehicles registered in Northern Ireland (part of the UK) and other Member States in the EU only subjecting their vehicles to equivalent checks every six months or less?
Why are vehicles weighed before they board ferries sailing from the UK (to avoid overloading), but not when sailing to the UK from ports such as Calais? Is this lack of checks prejudicing the safety of ships, crew and passengers?
In the UK, every tachograph is subject to regular and rigorous checks, in contrast to the practice in some other Member States where they are subject to random checks (for example Germany). What measures are planned to address this serious anomaly?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(19 June 2001)
The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member concern about safety and fair competition in road haulage. For this reason there are a number of Community Directives that apply to the road haulage sectors in all Member States. These Directives require vehicles and their equipment to be checked on a regular basis, but Member States may establish more onerous regimes for their own registered vehicles. Consequently, the United Kingdom or any other Member State could check the roadworthiness condition of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) or inspect the tachograph more frequently than the minimum required in the Directives. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/171
However, the Honourable Member’s question refers to practices in the United Kingdom that are not required in Community law. Indeed, in transposing the Community Directives within their national legislation, the United Kingdom has not opted for more frequent checks and inspections than the Directives require.
On the first point, Community law (1) requires that heavy goods vehicles in all Member States undertake a regulated roadworthiness inspection at least once every year. The Directive establishes minimum testing and inspection intervals leaving Member States the possibility to require more frequent testing of vehicles registered on their territory if they wish. Both the United Kingdom and Ireland’s legislative requirements for checking HGVs are in compliance with the Directive, i.e. they both require annual roadworthiness inspections.
On the second point, there are no Community requirements that require vehicles to be weighed when boarding a ferry but it is the operators responsibility to ensure that their vehicles are within the statutory maximum weight limits and the ferry company’s responsibility to ensure that their ferries are not overloaded. The Commission has no knowledge of an established link between maritime accidents and the overloading of lorries. It should also be noted that systematic controls of lorries at internal Community frontiers are not permitted (2).
Concerning the third point on tachograph checks, Community legislation (3) defines the content of checks at installation or repair and minimum frequency for periodic inspection and sets minimum standards during road side checks and in transport companies. In the context of Directive 88/599/EEC, the Commission produces a biennial report (4) on the level of compliance on the basis of information provided by the Member States. Such reports do not show particular discrepancies in the level of compliance as reported by the individual Member States.
(1) Council Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ L 46, 17.2.1997). (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4060/89 of 21 December 1989 on the elimination of controls performed at the frontiers of Member States in the field of road and inland waterway transport (OJ L 390, 30.12.1989) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3912/92 of 17 December 1992 on controls carried out within the Community in the field of road and inland waterway transport in respect of means of transport registered or put into circulation in a third country (OJ L 395, 31.12.1992). (3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (article 12 and Annex I Chapter VI), (OJ L 370, 31.12.1985) and Council Directive 88/599/EEC of 23 November 1988 on standard checking procedures for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport and Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ L 325, 29.11.1988). (4) COM(2000) 84 final.
(2001/C 340 E/196) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1103/01 by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission
(27 March 2001)
Subject: Urban Waste Water Directive
Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment seeks to protect the environ- ment from the harmful effects of both domestic and industrial waste water discharges. Creameries in certain peripheral areas of the EU are, however, facing grave financial difficulties because of the requirements of the implementing legislation. Certain operators are having to build expensive pipes to pump their biodegradable waste, such as surplus whey, out to sea.
Is it permissible, under the rules of the Directive, for a company to build an outflow pipe from its premises that would feed its biodegradable waste into the outflow pipe from a local waste treatment plant, after the treatment stage, so that both sets of discharge are pumped out to sea, provided that suitable arrangements are made for the metering of both sets of discharge separately? In this context, is the Commission aware of C 340 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
the problems faced by the creameries in Campbeltown and Rothesay, and, should the above proposal not be permissible, would it suggest the most practical way in which those operators might dispose of their waste?
(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(8 May 2001)
Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991, concerning urban waste water treatment (1) covers domestic waste water sources as well as a range of industrial waste waters which does not enter urban waste water treatment plants before discharge to water bodies.
Creameries as well as other plants of the agro-food sector are indeed addressed by the Directive, however the provisions are limited:
firstly, only larger milk processing plants are covered by the Directive, i.e. those with a pollution load of their waste water equalling a city of 4000 inhabitants or more (‘population equivalents’).
secondly, the level of treatment required is flexible and largely left to Member States. Whilst for urban waste water treatment plants the Directive established numerically defined limit values, the provisions for milk processing plants etc., are very flexible: Member States have to ensure that such waste water ‘respects conditions established in prior regulations and/or specific authorisations’ article 13(1); the sixth ‘whereas’ clause of the preamble refers to ‘appropriate treatment’ for such discharges.
As for the specific questions, the following information can be provided:
It is for the authorities within the United Kingdom to establish the conditions for the specific cases of Campbeltown and Rothesay or at a general level, and to implement them within the time schedule set, i.e. 31 December 2000. The Directive does not entail an obligation to expensive piping systems for sea disposal but does not prohibit them either, as it is in this context very flexible.
As for practical solutions to waste water problem of creameries, a range of solutions exists for such appropriate treatment throughout the United Kingdom and other Member States. Given the implementation responsibility of the British authorities as well as the technical and scientific experience with possible solutions available in the United Kingdom, it seems appropriate to consider such solutions with responsible bodies such as the Scottish Executive and/or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The Commission would of course in this context confirm its willingness to cooperate upon request of those authorities.
(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
(2001/C 340 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1107/01 by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Health and consumer protection
1. I would be grateful if the Commission could confirm what consultation took place with the Scottish salmon farming industry regarding the ISA withdrawal scheme, approved under Commission Decision 2001/186. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/173
2. Is the Commission aware that the epizootic study report called for in the Final Report DG(SANCO)/ 1148/2000, due to be delivered to the Commission by August 2000, has as yet not been delivered? Does he acknowledge, given the gravity of the situation, that this report is seven months overdue? Is the Commission aware that this report is likely to indicate that the ISA virus is present in between 5 % and 0,5 % of wild fish surveyed in Scottish waters, and clearly cannot now be described as exotic and should not be listed under List 1, Directive 91/67/EEC (1), 28 January 1991 as amended, Directive 93/53/EEC (2), 24 June 1993 and Directive 93/54/EEC (3), 24 June 1993?
3. Does the Commission believe it possible to eradicate the ISA virus from EU waters, given that it is present in wild fish stocks and the EU shares a common water mass with Norway and Canada, where the presence of the ISA virus is well established?
(1) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 1. (2) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993, p. 23. (3) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993, p. 34.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2001)
1. In July 2000 the United Kingdom presented to the Commission a withdrawal scheme to be applied in Scotland in the event of an outbreak of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA). Following an in-depth examination of the scheme certain amendments were made to improve the efficacy of the scheme. The Standing Veterinary Committee (SVC) gave a favourable opinion on the Commission’s proposal, which resulted in the adoption of the scheme by Commission Decision 2001/186/EC of 27 February 2001 approving the scheme submitted by the United Kingdom for the withdrawal of all fish in Scottish farms infected with infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) (1).
The Commission receives about 70 animal health schemes or programmes related to the control of infectious diseases for technical evaluation each year. The ISA withdrawal scheme was subject to a technical examination similar to other disease schemes, and included fish disease experts of the Member States in the evaluation process. In this particular case, Norwegian experts, who have several years experience in diagnosing and combating ISA, were also consulted the National Veterinary Institute in Norway is also the World Organisation for Animal Health’s (OIE) reference laboratory for ISA. The Commission did not specifically consult the Scottish salmon fish industry.
2. The Commission is awaiting the written epizootic report on ISA announced in relation to the mission carried out to Scotland in May 2000. However, the United Kingdom has regularly updated the Member States and the Commission about the development of ISA in Scotland, both via the SVC and at the Annual Meeting for the National Reference Laboratories for fish diseases. Further, Scotland gave an exhaustive epizootiological report at the SVC in connection with the evaluation of the Scottish withdrawal scheme. The appropriate information was judged to be available at the time for adoption of this scheme.
ISA was considered exotic to the Community until an outbreak occurred in Scotland in May 1998. The disease had at that time already been present in Norway for about 10 years and in Canada since 1997. During 1998 and 1999, the notified outbreaks of ISA in Scotland involved a number of sites being infected or suspected of being infected. Scotland also reported sporadic detection of ISA in the wild population. After implementing certain control measures taking into account positive experience gained especially by Norway including surveillance for the disease, no further outbreaks have been reported in Scotland since spring 1999. Scottish experts consider it possible that the disease can be eradicated from Scottish fish farms.
Community legislation does not define that diseases referred to in list I (ISA) of the Annex A to Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products, must be exotic to the Community.
3. In 1991 the Council adopted Directive 91/67/EEC with the objective to have harmonised health rules for ensuring the development of the aquaculture sector and to increase productivity. Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993, introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain fish C 340 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
diseases, was adopted in 1993 with the main objective to establish at Community level the control measures to be taken in the event of outbreaks of disease. The aim of this legislation was not necessarily to eradicate ISA from Community waters, rather to prevent the spread of the disease if present and to eradicate the agent from infected farms.
(1) OJ L 67, 9.3.2001.
(2001/C 340 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1113/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(6 April 2001)
Subject: Geographical restrictions on assisted property purchase
Is it compatible with EU law for a UK local authority to offer grants for the purchase of property to tenants of condemned public housing, subject to the restriction that assistance will only be provided if the property to be purchased is located within England or Wales?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 2001)
Article 56 (ex Article 73b) of the EC Treaty prohibits all restrictions on capital movements. Capital movements would include cross border purchases of real estate. According to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice restrictions include indirect barriers to conducting operations such that the freedom granted by the EC Treaty is rendered illusory. The Commission does not consider, however, that the local authority measures cited by the Honourable Member, involving grants to tenants of condemned public housing to purchase property within a delimited area of a Member State, are contrary to the freedom most involved. It is the Commission’s understanding that there is no nationality distinction made between tenants of the condemned public housing involved. Taxation and expenditure policies at national and local level will generally involve incentives or disincentives to conducting specific operations generally in specific areas under the jurisdiction of the entity involved in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity set out in Article 5 (ex Article 3b) of the EC Treaty. Thus, for instance, all industrial grants provided nationally or locally will involve establishment of the facility in a delimited area, rather than elsewhere within the Community, from taxes raised in the same or similar areas. While in this case State aids could be an issue, there has never been any question of maintaining that national measures, such as these, might be contrary to EC Treaty freedoms.
(2001/C 340 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1114/01 by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Council
(9 April 2001)
Subject: Anti-homosexual measures by the Namibian government
According to recent media reports, the President of Namibia, Sam Nujoma, has given orders to the police to arrest, imprison and deport all gays and lesbians on the grounds that homosexuality is unconstitutional.
These measures are in violation of the human rights of the citizens of Namibia and contravene the basic principles of the rule of law, and must, therefore, be considered totally unacceptable by the international community. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/175
The EU must condemn these decisions of the Namibian government, call for their immediate reversal and take action to ensure that the fundamental rights of the citizens of Namibia, including their rights of sexual preference, are respected in full.
In view of the fact that Namibia is a signatory of the Cotonou Agreement and given the Agreement’s provisions concerning respect by the parties for democratic principles and human rights, can the Council state what urgent action it intends to take to oppose these decisions by the Namibian government and demand their immediate reversal?
Reply
(16 July 2001)
In reply to the question raised by the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Council can inform him that the EU has instructed the local Presidency representative to carry out a demarche in Windhoek stating the EU’s concern about threats and verbal attacks against minorities in Namibia. The EU finds such official statements against minorities, inter alia against homosexuals, unacceptable and takes them to indicate worrying signs of intolerance.
The EU finds that these statements and actions contrast with the politics of reconciliation, tolerance, harmony and unity in diversity adopted by the Government of Namibia after independence and encourages the Government of Namibia to maintain its respect of human rights.
The EU considers that the offensive statements against minorities in the country damage confidence in Namibia’s future and undermine the Government’s laudable efforts to attract foreign investment, develop the tourist industry and improve the living standards of the Namibian people.
The content of this demarche may subsequently be issued as an EU declaration and once the reactions of the Namibian government to the demarche are known, the EU will revert to the matter if necessary.
The Council has also taken note of the resolution adopted by the European Parliament at its session on 5 April 2001 in Strasbourg on the rights of homosexual persons in Namibia, which the European Parliament intends to transmit to the government of Namibia.
(2001/C 340 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1123/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(6 April 2001)
Subject: RAI and political pluralism
It is a well-known fact that RAI (Radio Televisione Italiana, the Italian radio and television channel) is an undertaking which has been granted a concession to operate a national public utility. In order to receive its broadcasts, citizens have to pay a subscription fee. This is not RAI’s only source of funds; it also receives a substantial sum in advertising receipts. However, no distinction is made, as required by the Community rules, between the advertising revenue and that derived from the subscription fee, which is a state tax.
In view of RAI’s position as a public utility, can the Commission answer the following questions:
1. Has this undertaking ever, in the course of its history, received Community funds for any reason?
2. If so, for what purposes were those funds utilised?
3. If the funds were for the purpose of making programmes, when were those programmes broadcast? Are programmes still being broadcast? C 340 E/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
4. Did these programmes comply, or are they complying, with the principles of political pluralism and equal rights which RAI must observe? 5. If not, since these principles have not been observed, and in view of RAI’s role as a public utility, does the Commission not believe that it should take appropriate action?
(2001/C 340 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1244/01 by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE), Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Marcello Dell’Utri (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) and Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission (26 April 2001)
Subject: RAI (Italian Radio and Television Company)
Would the Commission and its President answer the following questions: in the course of its existence, has the Italian Radio and Television Company ever received any kind of funding from the Commission? has such funding been used for the purpose of broadcasting programmes or information bulletins? have such programmes and bulletins been broadcast and, if so, when? did such programmes and bulletins observe the principles which govern RAI in its capacity as a company responsible for providing a major public service? if the principles which RAI is supposed to uphold have been contravened, should the Commission not suspend any funding which it may be supplying?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1123/01 and E-1244/01 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (5 June 2001)
The main Community programme in the audiovisual sector is the MEDIA Plus programme, which entered into force on 1 January 2001. This programme follows on from the MEDIA and MEDIA II programmes, which were implemented between 1991 and 2000.
For these programmes, Community funding is awarded solely to independent producers and distributors, and the concept of independence is assessed in view of the tendering or receiving company’s possible links with a public or private broadcasting company.
Broadcasting companies, whether public or private, are not eligible for Community support under the MEDIA programmes. RAI has not, therefore, received any Community funding in this area.
(2001/C 340 E/202) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1128/01 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council (3 April 2001)
Subject: Lobbying for an EU superstate
It has been alleged that the American Committee for a United Europe made US Administration funds available to organisations campaigning for European integration.
In its answer to Written Question E-3127/00 (1), the Council failed to reply to part of the question relating to its files. Will it now answer whether it is in possession of any documents relating to this issue? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/177
Will it also now indicate whether ACUE or other intelligence-funded agencies or operations in pursuit of closer European integration have ever been discussed at Council meetings?
Similarly, does the Council have any records relating to funding by non-member states of organisations campaigning in the 1975 UK referendum on membership of the EEC? At what level of classification have they been set up?
(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 39.
Reply (16 July 2001)
Having nothing to add, the Council can only confirm the terms of its reply to the Honourable Member in response to his Question E-3127/00.
Since the Council has never been apprised of nor had to discuss the allegations to which the Honourable Member refers, it has no files on this subject of any type whatsoever.
(2001/C 340 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1129/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (3 April 2001)
Subject: ‘Naming and shaming’ to achieve environmental policy implementation
The objective of the ‘naming and shaming’ approach is to highlight failures by Member States to comply with EU law and increase public pressure upon decisions-makers. The organisation by the Commission of a seminar on the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Directive on 19 March is therefore to be welcomed.
However, the credibility of the Commission’s seminar was seriously undermined by the inclusion in its press release of locations such as Bebington, Birkenhead and Liverpool, where waste water treatment plants have recently been brought into use which ensure full compliance with the directive and have secured major improvements in water quality, and of locations such as Macclesfield, where a treatment plant has been in operation for many years but has apparently not been included on information supplied to the Commission.
Will the Commission agree that to assume that a place is a source of pollution, solely on the basis that it does not have the information to confirm that it is not, is unacceptable, maligns the town or city concerned and could result in damage to its reputation and image?
Will the Commission consider in the future giving one month’s notice of a ‘name and shame’ list to each Member State, both to provide decision-makers with an opportunity to confirm the factual accuracy of the information, and to allow them to prepare a public response which, insomuch as it is likely to indicate action which will be taken to ensure future compliance, is likely to encourage implementation of directives?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (8 May 2001)
The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water (1) sets clear objectives in terms of deadlines and environmental objectives to achieve: designation by the end of 1993 of sensitive areas according to criteria set out in the Directive; by the end of 1998, tertiary treatment for all agglomerations above 10 000 population equivalent (p.e.) (2) in the catchment of such sensitive areas; C 340 E/178 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
by the end of 2000, secondary treatment for all agglomerations above 15 000 population equivalents in the catchment ‘normal’ areas (i.e. such waters not identified as sensitive);
by the end of 2005, secondary treatment for all remaining agglomerations within the scope of the Directive.
The Commission will shortly publish its second report for the implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC, showing the state of play regarding the second deadline, i.e. 31 December 1998. It is in this context that the ‘name and shame’ seminar was organised. The Commission wanted to address in particular the following two issues: compliance in designating sensitive areas, and secondly and linked to the first, compliance with the 1998 deadline for discharges into sensitive areas.
For the sensitive areas, the Commission came to the conclusion that the United Kingdom, as is the case with other Member States, has not provided a complete designation of sensitive areas. This has in many cases led to a lower level of treatment (secondary treatment instead of tertiary treatment, involving nitrogen removal, for discharges into waters meeting the eutrophication criteria or disinfection in case of certain bathing waters).
Apart from evaluating the situation with regard to conformity for agglomerations concerned by sensitive areas on December 1998, the Commission wished to provide a ‘snapshot’ of the level of treatment of urban waste water in all large Community cities (above 150 000 p.e.) on 31 December 1998. With regard to the level of treatment provided in major cities and towns, one has to bear in mind that the Commission relies on the information provided by Member States. If no information is provided, the Commission can only conclude that no treatment has been put in place.
As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, on the situation of the main cities at 31 December 1998, Liverpool was provided with primary treatment, Bedington had preliminary treatment and there is no information about the level of treatment in Birkenhead and Macclesfield.
The draft of the second implementation report was sent to the Member Sates on the 13 March 2001. It has to be noted, however, that any new information that is provided by the Member States after the 31 January 2001 can only and will be taken into account for the third implementation report, which will reflect the situation for the third deadline of the directive, 31 December 2000 (see above).
In summary, the Commission considers that the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Directive, although considerable efforts have been made by certain Member States, is behind schedule and incomplete, both as regards compliance with the necessary treatment objective and deadlines.
(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991. (2) Population equivalent means the organic biodegradable load having a five-day chemical oxygen demand (BOD5) of 60 g of oxygen per day.
(2001/C 340 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1133/01 by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(10 April 2001)
Subject: Zimbabwe
Is it correct that the chairman of the Zimbabwean Red Cross is Dr Swithum Mombeshora who is also the Zanu/PF Minister of Energy in Mugabe’s Government? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/179
Is it also correct that there are Red Cross structures throughout Zimbabwe such as in Mberenqua East, which have as their acting chairman Mr Shiri, a teacher at Zuishava in Mberenqua East, a perpetrator of violence against MDC members, who was also arrested and charged, but is now a beneficiary of the Mugabe amnesty and is once again agitating for violence in preparation for the forthcoming Presidential election?
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(31 May 2001)
Swithun Mombeshora is Minister of Transport and Chairman of the Zimbabwe Red Cross.
Mr Shiri is Deputy Headmaster of a secondary school in Mberengwa District. He was taken into custody by police in connection with political violence carried out on behalf of the ruling party in Mberengwa in the pre-election period, but was soon released and there has been no follow-up. Mr Shiri was on the Mberengwa Committee of the Zimbabwe Red Cross. This Committee has been dissolved pending elections.
It is not the role of the Commission to judge individual nominations made at local and national levels by the Zimbabwe Red Cross. I would suggest your queries are directed to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
(2001/C 340 E/205) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1146/01 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(10 April 2001)
Subject: Environmental aggression on the island of Lanzarote (Canaries, Spain)
Unesco has declared the island of Lanzarote, in the Canaries archipelago, a biosphere reserve. Action by the Canaries artist César Manrique helped to preserve the island from attacks on its natural, landscape and archaeological assets. Now, however, strong pressure from tourism is threatening to eliminate areas of special ecological and cultural value.
The construction of ‘Marína del Rubicón’, a marina in the bay of Berrugo (Playa Blanca), has already destroyed a part of an area of great natural and ethnographic value in the Lanzarote local authority of Yaiza. The intertidal zone has a base of low sand and ridges, forming a perfect ecosystem for fish to lay their eggs and feed, but thousands of tons of stone and gravel have already been deposited there, blocking up the small beach via which small local boats used to go out to fish. Archaeological and historical remains are also affected.
What action can the Commission take to ensure compliance with Directives 85/337/EEC (1) and 92/43/ EEC (2) on environmental impact assessments and the protection of natural habitats in this case?
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2001)
The Commission was unaware of the situation the Honourable Member refers to in her Written Question.
On the basis of the information received from the Honourable Member, the Commission has ascertained that the area of the island of Lanzarote where the marina in question is to be built has not been classified by the Spanish authorities as a special protection area for birds under Article 4 of Council Directive C 340 E/180 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). Nor is it an area identified by the scientific community as an ‘important area for birds’ in the inventory prepared for the Commission in 1998 by national experts and Birdlife. Moreover, the Spanish authorities have not identified it as a site of Community importance for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Therefore, as far as nature conservation is concerned, this case appears to be a matter for the Spanish national and regional authorities alone.
With regard to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment, it should be noted that Article 2 thereof provides that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location must be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects before development consent is given.
This provision applies to projects of the classes listed in Annexes I and II to the Directive. Annex II point 10(j) includes the construction of yacht marinas. Under the terms of Article 4(2) projects of the classes listed in Annex II must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.
It should be noted that Directive 85/337/EEC was amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2). However, under Article 3(2) of Directive 97/11/EC if a request for development consent is submitted before 14 March 1999 the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to amendment continue to apply.
In any event, the Commission has contacted the Spanish authorities to ask for their comments on the situation reported by the Honourable Member in this written question, so as to ensure that the applicable Community law is complied with in this particular case.
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2001/C 340 E/206) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1147/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 April 2001)
Subject: GDP and public enterprises
1. What are the latest available figures for the share of GDP produced in each Member State by publicly controlled or owned enterprises?
2. What was the equivalent figure for each Member State five and ten years previously?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(6 July 2001)
The European System of National and Regional Account (ESA 95), adopted in the form of a Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 dated 25 June 1996 (1), does not foresee the collection of these data, and therefore, there are not official and/or harmonised date available at the Statistical Office of the European Communities.
The ‘European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest’ has published on its website (2) a document titled ‘the development of enterprises of public participation and of general economic interest in Europe since 1996’ in which some non-official data related to the Honourable Member’s question are included.
(1) OJ L 310, 30.11.1996. (2) http://www.ceep.org/index.html. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/181
(2001/C 340 E/207) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1150/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 April 2001)
Subject: Prices of farm products
Further to the Commission’s answer to Question E-0338/01 (1), will the Commission now estimate the percentage difference between the prices of the five most significant farm products within the Community at the end of each year for the last five years, based on the specific and updated information both on internal markets and on world markets mentioned in the answer?
The end is defined as the last trading day of the year, ideally at the end of the trading day. If the Commission feels that this information may be unrepresentative, the Commission is invited to supplement this information with end month figures for each month of the year for the last five years.
(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 180.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2001)
The percentage difference between the domestic prices and the world prices of the five most significant farm products within the Community at the end of each year for the last five years is given in the table below. It is based on the specific and updated information on prices both on internal markets and on world markets, used in the framework of the management of the common market organisations. This comparison is only illustrative of the situation existing at a given date as it depends on many factors, such as the particular market, the product specification, the €/USD exchange rate, etc.
Difference between the domestic and world prices for some farm commodities at the end of each year:
(%)
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Common 19,1 19,0 30,7 44,6 14,4 Beef 57,6 54,6 71,8 27,1 − 12,1 Pig meat 27,3 47,1 125,5 17,3 36,5 Poultry 43,2 66,9 40,6 12,9 33,4 Butter 208,9 121,8 130,7 165,4 131,6
Source: EU Commission Calculation: (domestic − world) / world.
(2001/C 340 E/208) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1152/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 April 2001)
Subject: Use of identity cards
Will the Commission state which Member States:
1. Issue identity cards (other than passports for international use)?
2. Legally require citizens to carry such identity cards?
3. Report on the number of inspections of such identity cards? C 340 E/182 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(1 June 2001)
1. On the basis of the information available to the Commission all Member States except Denmark, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom deliver identity cards to their nationals.
2. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E- 3070/98 by Mrs Banotti (1) and E-1303/96 by Mrs Maij-Weggen (2).
3. In the performance of its duties under the Treaties, the Commission does not acquire information of the kind requested. It is therefore unable to answer the question.
(1) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999. (2) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997.
(2001/C 340 E/209) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1153/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 April 2001)
Subject: Application of the common fisheries policy
What are the principal differences, if any, between the regimes applied under the common fisheries policy in the western waters of the EU and other areas (such as the Mediterranean)?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2001)
The principal difference between the regimes applied in the Common Fisheries Policy in Community waters of the Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic and those applied in the Mediterranean is that in the latter area, the system of Total Allowable Catches (TAC) and associated quotas does not apply, except with respect to bluefin tuna.
The reason for non-application of TACs is that most fisheries in the Mediterranean, in particular fisheries for bottom-living species, catch a mixture of many species of fish in which no one species or group of species is predominant. Under such conditions, the TAC system is very difficult to implement in an effective manner.
(2001/C 340 E/210) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1161/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Implementation of the Bathing Water Directive
What is the Commission’s policy regarding the enforcement of the provisions of the Bathing Water Directive in instances where the Member States have taken all the necessary measures but still do not comply with the legal requirements? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/183
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(21 June 2001)
Article 4(1) of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (1) provides that Member States should take all necessary measures to ensure that, within ten years following the notification of that directive, the quality of bathing water conforms to the limit values set out in accordance with Article 3, or in other words with effect from 10 December 1985.
If, despite any Member States’ efforts and initiatives, the quality of bathing water at a specific location does not meet the values required by the directive, the Commission considers that bathing in any such water constitutes an infringement of the directive and may activate an infringement procedure on that matter.
(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
(2001/C 340 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1164/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Compensation for the transfer of football players
The recently negotiated football transfer fee system states that the calculation of compensation for the transfer of a player will depend not on the training costs of an individual player but on the league and the type of club.
What precautions has the Commission taken to ensure that this will not financially disadvantage lower division clubs, for example in the Vauxhall Conference in the UK, who are much more dependent on income from transfer fees than top level clubs?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(12 June 2001)
According to the general principles of the undertaking submitted by International Federation for Football Associations (FIFA) on 5 March 2001, it is FIFA’s responsibility to implement inter alia a system of training compensation for players aged under 23.
The system will be based on a categorisation of clubs in accordance with their training costs to be established by FIFA under objective criteria.
The Commission made clear that the aim of the new system should be the encouragement and rewarding of the training efforts of clubs, in particular, those of small and amateur clubs without limiting freedom of movement of players in a disproportionate way.
The attention of the Honourable Member is also drawn to the joint reply made by the Commission to Questions E-1052/01, E-1053/01 and E-1054/01 by Mr Ford (1).
(1) See page 157. C 340 E/184 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/212) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1165/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE), Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE), María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Secrecy in connection with 83 scientific reports on the Spanish Hydrological Plan
In October 2000 the Spanish Government asked about 130 scientists to draw up scientific reports on different aspects of the proposed ‘Plan Hydrológico Nacional’. The deadline was the end of November 2000. Eighty-three of them have produced one. Most of them are critical of the Plan. Now, the Spanish Government refuses to make these 83 studies public. The Spanish Government does not even allow the authors to publish them and therefore argues against one of the scientists who has put his report on the Internet.
Is this behaviour of the Spanish Government in conformity with the EU Law on access to environmental information?
Does the European Commission have access to these 83 studies?
Will the European Commission ask the Spanish Government to make these studies public?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(26 June 2001)
Article 3 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment (1) stipulates that public authorities are required to make available information relating to the environment to any natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest.
Paragraph 4 of that Article specifies that the public authority must respond to a person requesting information as soon as possible and at the latest within two months. The reasons for a refusal to provide the information requested must be given and must be based on one of the exceptions laid down in Article 3(2) and (3).
Article 4 of Directive 90/313/EEC also provides that a person who considers that his request for information has been unreasonably refused or ignored, or has been inadequately answered by a public authority, may seek a judicial or administrative review of the decision in accordance with the relevant national legal system.
Directive 90/313/EEC was transposed into Spanish law by Law No 38 of 13 December 1995, as amended by Law No 55 of 29 December 1999 introducing national review procedures.
With only the information supplied in the Written Question to go on, the Commission is unable to establish whether the Spanish authorities have received a request for access to information on which they might have failed to act appropriately, possibly in violation of the provisions of the Directive.
Should a request for access have been refused, in violation of the provisions of the Directive, by the authority to which it was made, it would be for the person who made the request to seek a review as provided for in Article 4 of the Directive and by the transposing Spanish legislation.
The Commission does not have access to the 83 studies referred to in the question.
No provision of Community law empowers the Commission to ask the Spanish Government to make the studies public.
(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/185
(2001/C 340 E/213) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1167/01 by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Zimbabwe Resolution
What action has been taken against the Zimbabwean Government following the resolution of the European Parliament (R5-0156/2001)? What steps have been taken to identify overseas assets held by President Mugabe and his supporters? Has development cooperation assistance (for which the Commission is responsible) managed by the Zimbabwean Government and its agencies been suspended?
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2001)
Identification of the overseas assets of President Mugabe and his supporters would be an early step in direction of preventive sanctions. However, taking this step would require a common position of the Union under the common foreign and security policy (CFSP).
Discussions in the CFSP fora indicate a consensus in favour of Political Dialogue under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement, and against any form of sanctions at this stage. President Mugabe has welcomed this initiative and the Troika Heads of Mission in Harare have been instructed to carry out the Dialogue. The Union’s policy of Dialogue will be reviewed at the General Affairs Council in June 2001.
At present, the Commission shares the publicly expressed views of the leader of the Movement of Democratic Change (MDC) opposition, Mr Tsvangirai, that sanctions should be applied in response to a severe deterioration: suspension of the Constitution or cancellation of Presidential Elections.
Development co-operation assistance managed by the Commission has been re-oriented to the social sectors. The Commission believes that a collapse of basic social services would have extremely high costs in terms of human suffering and ulterior rehabilitation.
The Commission has therefore maintained its programmes in the areas of primary health and education. This assistance, agreed with the Government of Zimbabwe, is directed towards the most vulnerable groups of the population. The projects are designed to ensure that the funds reach the poorest, in the knowledge that without Community support those children would not attend school and the sick would not be treated.
Given the nature of this type of assistance, it is likely that even if the Union decided to apply sanctions against Zimbabwe, these humanitarian/social oriented programmes to alleviate poverty would still be maintained.
(2001/C 340 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1169/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Pollution of the Mediterranean
Oil emissions caused by discharges of tankers’ washing water have brought the Mediterranean to the brink of disaster.
Worrying data comes in the form of the 1600 satellite photographs compiled by the European Commission’s Research Centre the only reliable evidence of oil pollution in the Mediterranean. 70 % of the oil released into the Mediterranean by ships results from traditional practices, since discharging into the sea is quicker and cheaper. C 340 E/186 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
At the bottom of the Mediterranean, the concentration of tar is currently 38 milligrammes per cubic metre.
The slow discharge of oil into the Mediterranean is causing irreparable environmental damage which is much more serious than that seen recently in the Galapagos islands.
In view of the above, and in view of the environmental programmes which the European Community has set up in the past to protect the sea from oil pollution,
Can the Commission answer the following questions:
1. Is it aware of the above data on pollution?
2. Has it already tackled the emergency in the Mediterranean, and if so, with what measures?
3. What initiatives does it intend to take to solve the problem?
4. Does it plan to set up a supervisory body to put a stop to this illegal and highly environmentally damaging practice?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(21 June 2001)
The Commission is greatly concerned by pollution caused by operational discharges from ships in Community waters. This represents a great share of the total marine oil pollution.
Indeed, the data recently compiled by the Joint Research Centre on the basis of satellite images, gives, for the first time, a more precise idea of the extent of this type of pollution in the Mediterranean.
A great deal of operational pollution coming from all types of ships in Community waters results from the inability of some ports to provide adequate waste reception facilities and of course, from the reluctance of ships to use them for various reasons. The recently adopted Parliament and Council Directive 2000/59/EC of 27 November 2000 (1) on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, addresses these issues and introduces a number of requirements on both ports and ships to ensure that adequate facilities are available in all Community ports and that they are used by ships.
Regarding the control of such illegal discharges in the Mediterranean, under International Maritime Law this is a question that falls primarily under the responsibility of the concerned riparian States. However, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to Decision 2850/2000/EC of 20 December 2000 of the Parliament and of the Council setting up a Community framework for co- operation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution (1). This framework will in particular allow the development of joint initiatives such as workshops or training courses in order to improve the techniques for identifying contravening vessels. It will also improve the exchange of information on the efficiency of the prosecution systems applied in the different Member States. This will create synergies at Community level and should ultimately permit the implementation of dissuasive sanctions against the parties responsible for such criminal acts.
The prosecution of deliberate discharges by environmental criminal liability would constitute a major advance in fighting this source of pollution. This is why it has been included in the scope of the recent proposal from the Commission for a Directive concerning the protection of environment by criminal law (2).
Moreover, the Commission closely follows and fully supports the work done in this respect in the framework of the Barcelona Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean.
(1) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000. (2) COM(2001) 139 final. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/187
(2001/C 340 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1171/01 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (19 April 2001)
Subject: Mining in Sardinia and environmental impact assessments
The autonomous region of Sardinia has granted a mining licence (3) (kaolin, bentonite, bleaching earth and feldspar), under Royal Decree No 1443 of 1927 and subsequent amendments and additions, to Caolino Panciera S.p.A. for an area of 180 hectares in the district of Muros (Sassari), while three separate prospecting licences (4) (gold, silver and associated minerals) have been granted under the above law to Sardinia Gold Mining S.p.A. for an area of 805 hectares in the districts of Cossoine, Giave and Mara (Sassari), an area of 702 hectares in the districts of Chiaramonti, Nulvi, Osilo and Ploaghe (Sassari) and an area of 758 hectares in the district of Villaputzu (Cagliari).
These permits have been granted without the environmental impact assessment procedure having first been carried out; this procedure is compulsory under European Directive No 97/11/EC (1) (Annex I, point 19), despite the provisions of the Italian implementing legislation (Article 1(1) of Presidential Decree of 11 February 1998).
Is the Commission aware of the information given above?
Has the Commission ascertained whether the law has been observed with regard to environmental impact assessments of the above operations?
Does the Commission intend to take appropriate action on this matter?
Is any Community funding earmarked for these mining operations?
(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (26 June 2001)
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), establishes that projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment, by virtue of their nature, size or location, are made subject to an assessment of their effects environmental impact assessment (EIA). Classes of projects covered by the directive are listed in the two Annexes. Projects listed in Annex I require an EIA procedure. Under Article 4(2), projects of the classes listed in Annex II are made subject to an EIA, where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.
Pursuant to Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), which has modified Directive 85/337/EEC, for projects listed in Annex II, Member States are obliged to determine, through a case-by-case examination, or thresholds or criteria set by the Member States, whether the project is to be made subject to an EIA. However, projects whose requests for development consent were submitted to a competent authority before 14 March 1999 are governed by the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments.
On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the work to which the question makes reference could fall either into the scope of paragraph 2 (extractive industry) of Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments, into paragraph 19 (Quarries and open-cast mining where the surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares, or peat extraction, where the surface of the site exceeds 150 hectares) of Annex I of Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified by Directive 97/11/EC, or paragraph 2 (extractive industry) of Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified by Directive 97/11/EC.
The Commission has already opened a complaint file on the project mentioned by the Honourable Member and a letter has been sent to the Italian authorities to request information on the issue.
Should the Commission find that Community law is being breached in the specific case, it would not hesitate, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of the relevant Community law. C 340 E/188 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
According to the information received from the Member State authorities, these projects have not received funding in the framework of the structural funds.
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2001/C 340 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1173/01 by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(24 April 2001)
Subject: Disarming the UCK since the end of 2000
Referring to my Written Question E-2287/00 (1) of 11 July 2000, on illegal arms dumps and armed incidents in Kosovo, and the relevant reply of 20 November 2000, would the Council say:
1. How many rifles, pistols, support weapons, machine guns and mortars, anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft weapons, explosive devices and rounds of ammunition KFOR has collected in Kosovo since the end of 2000?
2. How many illegal arms dumps UNMIK and/or KFOR has discovered since the end of 2000?
3. What information there is on the existence of other illegal arms dumps in Kosovo?
(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 80.
(2001/C 340 E/217) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1209/01 by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(24 April 2001)
Subject: UNMIK’s crime statistics
With reference to the crime statistics compiled by UNMIK (http://www.civpol.org/unmik/statistics.htm), which list in detail which crimes were committed in Kosovo and where (and the ethnic group to which the victim or victims belonged), can the Council indicate:
how many arrests were made subsequent to those crimes, and
how many of those arrested were actually convicted?
The Council should restrict itself in its answer to the period from the date on which UNMIK took over police duties in Kosovo to the beginning of 2001.
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1173/01 and E-1209/01
(20 July 2001)
The Council is very concerned about the quantity of illegal arms in Kosovo, which contribute to violence and to the level of criminality not only in Kosovo, but also in the whole region. In answering to the Honourable Member’s question last year, the Council pointed out that the EU has no direct responsibility for public order and security in Kosovo, including the establishing of relevant crime statistics. Following UN Security Council Resolution 1244, these are matters entirely in the hands of UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo) and KFOR (the NATO Kosovo Force). Both report regularly, to the United Nations Secretary General and Security Council and to NATO (including on the issues raised by the Honourable Member). 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/189
The Council strongly supports the full implementation of UNSC Resolution 1244, including on the important and delicate aspects referred to by the Honourable Member. It also applauds the efforts deployed by UNMIK and KFOR as well as the success they achieved in combating criminality and the illegal trafficking of arms.
(2001/C 340 E/218) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1177/01 by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 April 2001)
Subject: Financial aid to Venezuela
On 20 January 2000, the European Parliament adopted a resolution, voicing EU solidarity with, and support for, the Venezuelan people in the wake of the appalling flooding of December 1999. Even before the resolution was adopted, the Commission had made € 3,6 million available in emergency aid via ECHO, a sum later increased by € 3,5 million once the exceptional importance of this aid had become apparent, in terms of the sheer needs of those affected by the immediate impact of the disaster. The speed and efficiency with which this aid was dispatched merits all due acknowledgement and praise.
An ad hoc EP delegation, of which I was a member, travelled to the worst-hit areas in February 2000, and we saw with our own eyes not only the vast scale of the disaster, but also just how important the EU aid was, both in terms of providing humanitarian aid to those affected, and of the work of reconstruction in the areas hit. Following the delegation’s visit, Parliament adopted a resolution on the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the areas affected by the floods, proposing that € 100 million worth of aid be allocated for this purpose.
In the wake of this resolution, the European Union made available some € 60 million to help the task of reconstruction in the areas hit by the floods and for disaster-prevention measures, the money being found under various budgetary headings (Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Measures for the countries of Latin America; Technical and Financial Cooperation with Developing Countries in Latin America).
In the meantime, more than one Commission delegation has travelled to Venezuela to sound out the relevant authorities as to the project’s to be funded in the areas deemed to be priorities.
Can the Commission answer the following:
Why has not one single euro been spent in support of reconstruction work and disaster-prevention, over fifteen months after the VARGS disaster?
When will the aid finally begin, what are the areas deemed to constitute priorities, and what projects are to be funded?
How has the coordination of international aid been implemented?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(17 May 2001)
Immediately following the floods in Venezuela, the Commission mobilised emergency aid, through its humanitarian office, ECHO. Since the end of December 1999, the Commission has approved four Decisions for a total amount of € 7,15 million, including 20 humanitarian operations (1). All humanitarian operations have already been completed, except one that is about to conclude in May 2001.
The Commission decided in September 2000 (2) to assist reconstruction in the area and envisages allocating a total of € 30 million to Venezuela’s reconstruction effort. € 20 million will be committed during 2001, and € 10 million during 2002. C 340 E/190 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
The Commission plans to take action on two fronts: reconstruction aid to the state of Vargas, € 10 million. It will essentially focus on social issues (health, drinking water, housing and education); risk prevention. A package of € 20 million for the definition and implementation of natural risk management programmes over a large area adjacent to the region affected by the 1999 floods, encompassing the states of Falcon, Miranda and Yaracuy. These initiatives will include a detailed risk map, the implementation of early warning systems, the production of land use plans, support for the application of the necessary legislation, as well as the construction of flood-control and other risk- prevention structures.
The Commission has already done an expert mission to identify specific projects. It is presently evaluating these findings and will shortly launch the list of projects.
The Parliament secured an extra budget of € 25 million for 2001 for which projects will be identified this year.
ECHO’s technical assistant based in Lima was provisionally transferred to Caracas on 21 December 1999 in order to assess the emergency operation and co-ordinate the first humanitarian actions. During the emergency phase, the Commission Delegation and ECHOs technical assistant actively participated in various co-ordination meetings, although the Venezuelan government did not set up any formal co- ordination forum.
At this moment, the Commission is having contacts with other donors (such as United Nations Development Programme UNDP) to study the possibility of co-ordinating projects.
(1) ECHO/VEN/210/1999/01000, € 400 000, 23.12.1999. ECHO/VEN/210/2000/01000, € 3 200 000, 30.12.1999. ECHO/VEN/210/2000/02000, € 2 000 000, 7.2.2000. ECHO/VEN/210/2000/03000, € 1 550 000, 28.7.2000. (2) SEC(2000) 1571 final.
(2001/C 340 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1181/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (19 April 2001)
Subject: The Single European Authorisation Project
The Single European Authorisation project is a pilot project currently being run by UK Customs and its partners on the continent. The aim of this project is to enable a trader to make all customs declarations from one country.
However, there is, as yet, no common implementation plan, and this has resulted in each country in the EU negotiating separate agreements with its partners and thus creating multiple standards across Europe.
What plans has the Commission to encourage/implement a greater degree of cooperation and coordination in this project.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (7 June 2001)
The Commission is very conscious of traders’ desire for simplification and harmonization, and in particular of their desire, where they have operations in more than one Member State (and a central place of main accounting) to be able to deal with just one customs administration for customs matters, instead of up to 15 (single authorizations).
Single authorizations are in the logic of the internal market and the Commission supports them. It is indeed already several years since the Commission first made proposals in this area. Indeed, the rules on end-use and customs procedures with economic impact already make explicit reference to single authorizations. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/191
Nevertheless, the situation as regards release for free circulation (using the so-called ‘simplified procedures’) is more complex, since it raises issues such as the customs debt, VAT, statistics and the sharing of collection costs (the amount of money Member States are allowed to keep to cover their administration expenses).
While there is a general legal basis for single authorizations in the Community Customs Code, practical experience is needed. It has been agreed with the Member States that those which receive applications for single authorizations, can (with the agreement of the other administrations concerned) grant them. For its part, the Commission monitors progress and ensures a regular exchange of information within the framework of the Customs Code Committee. These projects are termed ‘pilot projects’ and it is in this context that the project being operated by the United Kingdom is situated.
Unfortunately, progress on the pilot projects generally has been much slower than expected. Nevertheless, those that are now operating do seem to be operating smoothly and the Commission is hopeful that in future they will become more routine.
The Commission will continue to lend general support to the pilot projects and will continue to have exchanges of information in the Customs Code Committee. In addition, this issue will be promoted in the framework of a Customs-Trade seminar in Sweden planned for June 2001.
The Commission would be prepared to propose legislation within the limits of its powers should it prove necessary either to overcome a legal problem, or else to ensure uniformity.
(2001/C 340 E/220) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1182/01 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Construction of the El Pical wind farm
The El Pical wind farm project which has been developed by Corporación Eólica SA in the districts of Barruelo de Santullán and Brañosera (Palencia, Spain) and which is currently under construction is causing much concern amongst local people on account of the fact that it is located on the boundary of the Fuentes Carrionas-Fuente del Cobre, Montaña Palentina National Park which is home to the brown bear, a listed species threatened with extinction. It will also affect broad swathes of vegetation including beech and holly trees.
It is somewhat inconsistent that the relevant authorities in the Castilla-León region should seek Unesco World Heritage status for the Romanesque architecture of Palencia (which is located in the area concerned) and at the same time allow the installation of hundreds of windmills that spoil the surroundings of monuments which are of exceptional historical and cultural significance.
Although the use of renewable energy sources should indeed be increased, places should be found for wind farms which do not affect the natural and cultural environment.
In the case under consideration there could be infringement of, at the very least, the following Directives:
85/337/EEC (1) on environmental impact studies;
92/43/EEC (2) on natural habitats;
79/409/EEC (3) on the protection of birds.
What action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that Community law is properly applied and to prevent irreversible damage to the areas concerned?
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. C 340 E/192 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(21 June 2001)
The Commission was not aware of the situation referred to by the Honourable Member. However, it has checked that that the area has been proposed by Spain for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network provided for in Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (site ES 4140011 ‘Fuentes Carrionas Fuente del Cobre, montaña palentina’). The area has also been classified by the Spanish authorities as a special protection area for birds under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.
The site covers an area of 78 178 hectares.
The area hosts one of the most endangered mammals in Europe, the brown bear, a priority species listed in Annex II to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, with a population of twenty animals. It also contains 31 of the habitat types listed in Annex I to Directive 92/43/EEC, 8 of which are priority (4030, 6212, 4020, 6220, 9580, 7130, 7220 and 6230).
The area hosts 24 of the bird species listed in Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC. Other forest and alpine birds are also present and are of great national and regional importance (Dendrocopus medius, Dryocopus martius and Aquila chrysaetos). The presence of another 24 migratory species has also been noted.
In view of the above, the Commission has decided to launch an own-initiative investigation to look into the situation referred to in the written question.
It has contacted the Spanish authorities to check that Community law is being observed in this instance.
(2001/C 340 E/221) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1183/01 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Human rights in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement
In January of this year the Commission President, Romano Prodi, went to Tunisia as part of a programme of visits which also took him to Algeria and Morocco.
Whilst in Tunisia, Mr Prodi held discussions with the country’s authorities on topics such as emigration, human rights, the conflict in the Middle East and the situation in the Arab Maghreb Union.
Human rights in Tunisia are constantly being violated and during his visit, Mr Prodi had a meeting with the recently banned Tunisian League for the Protection of Human Rights. In the light of the above, could the Commission say what cooperation initiatives are being undertaken in Tunisia in connection with the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement?
Reply given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(28 May 2001)
The Commission has always been concerned for human rights and civil liberties. As a result, and on principle, we consider any decision to restrict such freedoms to be regrettable.
The EU’s partnership with Tunisia takes the form of a process of gradual integration. In this context, the Commission initially decided to give priority to the two positive instruments provided for by the Barcelona Declaration and the EU-Tunisia Association Agreement -- namely, political dialogue and funding programmes to promote human rights and civil liberties. Our aim is to see a lasting improvement in the field of human rights and freedom of expression. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/193
More specifically, projects to support the media and strengthen civil society figure in the Commission’s 2001 cooperation programme with Tunisia. Since the Association Agreement entered into force, we have also decided to make exhaustive use of all possibilities for dialogue at every level. We will therefore continue to intensify our political dialogue, and through it we will also address particular cases which may concern both sides.
The Commission believes that Tunisia has made considerable progress in terms of both economic health and social stability, and so ought to be ready to make a start on ambitious reforms in the field of civil liberties and political pluralism. It should also be ready to adopt practical affirmative measures, through which its ties with the Union may be strengthened, as it wishes. Indeed, it is impossible for any society to achieve its full potential without involving its citizens fully in the decision-making process.
(2001/C 340 E/222) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1187/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Work-related accidents in the European Union
A recent study by Eurostat into the situation of workers in the EU reveals that, in 1998, 4,7 million work- related accidents occurred in the EU, of which (again according to the report) 5 476 out of every 100 000 were fatal.
Age plays an important role in the accident rate: the average number of accidents amongst workers between the ages of 18 and 24 is 5725, although this figure falls by almost half in the case of workers between the ages of 45 and 54.
All of these figures vary according to type of work: the highest rate was recorded in the construction industry, where 8 008 accidents (including 13 fatal ones) occurred for every 100 000 workers. Sex is a further risk factor: for every 100 000 workers a total of 5 292 fatal accidents occurred involving men, but in the case of women the figure was only 1 890.
In addition to their effects on individuals, accidents at work carry a high socio-economic cost, since it is calculated that, in 1998, such accidents caused the loss in the EU of approximately 149 working hours per worker.
In view of the above figures, is the Commission intending to do anything to encourage the governments of the Member States to adopt more stringent measures which may help to cut the rate of accidents at work? If so, is there any EU initiative which is designed to promote working attitudes and practices which may lead to greater safety at work?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(21 June 2001)
The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member’s concern about the work-related accident situation in the Community.
Nevertheless, these 1988 (1) data the most recent available show an improvement at European level in both the rate of work accidents with more then three days’ absence (4 089 per 100 000 employed persons in 1998, compared with 4 229 in 1996 and 4 539 in 1994) and the rate of fatal work accidents (5,0 per 100 000 employed persons in 1998 compared with 5,3 in 1996 and 6,1 in 1994). These figures include traffic accidents and accidents on board all means of transport during work.
These statistical indicators show that the application at European level of Community legislation on safety and health protection for workers at work has had a positive effect in terms of improving working conditions by reducing accident rates. In other words, the legislation, when correctly applied, improves the health and safety of workers at work. C 340 E/194 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
The Commission feels that it is the task of the Member States to promote and ensure the correct and effective application of the national measures implementing the Community directives.
Since 1992 the Commission has supported several initiatives to boost the awareness of the various parties concerned, at European level and in close cooperation with the Member States, with a view to improving the effectiveness of measures adopted in this field.
These were:
the European Year of Health and Safety at Work (1992);
‘PRevent’ actions (2) in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as part of the Safety Actions for Europe Programme (SAFE) in 1997 and 1998, which will continue under the new initiative for SMEs launched with the creation of a specific line in the Community budget which will be managed by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in Bilbao;
several ‘European Weeks’, which the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in Bilbao is now responsible for organising. In 2000 the European Week’s subject was musculoskeletal disorders, and in October 2001 the theme will be the prevention of accidents at work.
Finally, the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the preparation of the new Community strategy on safety and health at work, which will establish a framework for future action to achieve an ongoing improvement in working conditions for European workers.
(1) ESAW data (European Statistics on Accidents at Work) from Eurostat, http://www.cc.cec/eurostat/eudor-stat/mst3/ en/titres.htm. (2) Awareness actions on safety and health at work in general as well as the promotion and exchange of best practices in SMEs.
(2001/C 340 E/223) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1188/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Techniques for detecting meat from animals fed on illegal feedingstuffs
A technique devised by Spanish researchers at the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas [= Senior Scientific Research Council] is capable of determining whether nor not any bovine product (meat, skin, horns, hooves) comes from a beast fed on meal containing any kind of meat, which in the case of ruminant animals has been banned since 1994.
Initial trials of the technique carried out on 350 samples of animals and of meat purchased in Spanish shops proved highly successful and information regarding the technique has already been conveyed to the Spanish Government.
Does the Commission not think that it should provide support to help consolidate the initial (and highly encouraging) results of the technique by approving the latter and by providing a major share of the funding required to finance relevant research work?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(26 June 2001)
The Commission is aware of the new testing method being developed in Spain to detect meat and bone meal in feed and whether cattle have been fed such meal, and is carefully considering the scientific validity of the method and will consider authorising its use, should trials prove to be satisfactory. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/195
(2001/C 340 E/224) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1189/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Economy-class syndrome
There have recently been a number of cases of what is termed economy-class syndrome, which has led to the deaths of passengers travelling on long-haul flights as a result of their being required to sit for hours in the same position in the cramped seating of aircraft used on intercontinental flights.
This phenomenon is simply a consequence of the fact that the airlines are trying to make as much use as possible of the space available on aircraft in order to increase the profitability of long-haul flights. However, the situation has reached such a stage that, in order to protect the lives of passengers, regulations should be introduced which dictate the amount of space to which each passenger should be entitled in order to be able to move around enough to prevent the occurrence of the dreaded embolism caused by economy-class syndrome.
In view of the above, does the Commission not think that it should take action to protect the lives of passengers on intercontinental flights by introducing regulations which will oblige airlines to provide adequate seating?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(12 June 2001)
The Commission is well aware of recent reports and developments in the field of Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and cabin conditions and is taking passengers’ concerns very seriously. It has examined various reports, in particular that of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Lords.
On the basis of a preliminary assessment, the Commission has not found real substance in the extreme claims about health risks from air travel. However, it takes the danger of health risks most seriously, in particular that of DVT, the more so as data is poor on the incidence of the complaint.
Consequently, as a first precaution, Mrs de Palacio, Vice-President of the Commission responsible for transport policy has written to the presidents of the Association of European Airlines, the European Regions Airlines Association and the International Air Carrier Association, urging their members to take precautionary measures in relation to DVT. In her letter, she has urged airlines to act rapidly to minimise the risks by informing passengers when they make reservations or order tickets, on the risks, on predisposing factors and on precautionary measures to take before long flights and advise them, once on board the aircraft, on what to do to lessen the chance of thrombosis.
A number of airlines have already introduced, on their own initiative, pre-boarding warnings and/or in- flight advice (leaflets, videos, in-flight magazines showing exercises, recommending what to do and what to avoid, etc).
Originally, as indicated in a previous Joint reply to Written Questions E-0151/01 of Mr Hatzidakis, E-0155/01 of Mrs Roth-Behrendt and Mr Souladakis, E-0191/01 of Mr Davies, E-0233/01 of Mrs Garcia Orcoyen Tormo, E-0271/01 of Mr Duin and P-0353/01 of Sir Robert Atkins (1), the Commission had intended to set up expert groups, one on the effects of DVT and the other on air quality and cabin conditions.
In the meantime, in view of various initiatives, and in particular a specialised conference organised by the World Health Organisation in March 2001, the Commission is of the opinion that it would be more efficient to contribute financially to research to be undertaken at international level, covering the following aspects:
1. establish whether there is an association between air travel and DVT, quantify this association, if it exists, and provide clues to aetiological factors; C 340 E/196 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
2. special studies involving groups of volunteers, examining isolated independent environmental and behavioral risk factors;
3. interventional study to assess preventive measures with standardised diagnostic methods, involving passengers in experimental well-controlled studies.
This research programme is due to be launched in the summer of 2001.
The Commission will not fail to forward the results of this work to the Parliament, once completed. However, in the current status of scientific knowledge, the Commission does not intend to propose a new regulation in this matter.
(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 132.
(2001/C 340 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1201/01 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Harmonisation of minimum standards for personal protective equipment
1. Are employers obliged, following the publication of Council Directive 89/686/EEC (1) in the Official Journal and the listing of sources in the equipment safety law, to make personal protective equipment meeting these minimum standards available to their employees? Is there an indirect obligation for the latter to wear this equipment for reasons of liability?
2. Following the publication of these standards, are employers still free to determine on their own authority what kind of work and protective clothing employees should wear?
3. Is the labour protection law affected by the minimum standards?
4. The regulation on workplaces excludes road vehicles in public transport from the scope of its provisions. Could the minimum standards for personal protective equipment likewise be excluded?
(1) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 18.
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(18 June 2001)
Article 4 (1) of Council Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 on the minimum health and safety requirements for the use by workers of personal protective equipment at the workplace (1) provides that ‘personal protective equipment must comply with the relevant Community provisions on design and manufacture with respect to safety and health’, i.e. with Directive 89/686/EEC as amended on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (2).
Article 4 of Directive 89/656/EEC also sets out the conditions of use of personal protective equipment. In particular, paragraph 6 stipulates that it must be supplied free of charge by the employer but leaves it up to Member States whether to provide ‘that the worker be asked to contribute towards the cost of certain personal protective equipment in circumstances where use of the equipment is not exclusive to the workplace’.
In accordance with Article 13 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (3), ‘it shall be the responsibility of each worker to take care as far as possible of his own safety and health and that of other persons affected by his acts or omissions at work in accordance with his training and the instructions given by his employer’. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/197
To this end, workers must, for example, ‘make correct use of the personal protective equipment supplied to them’.
In the ‘new approach’ directives, which include Directive 89/686/EEC, the application of European standards is voluntary.
The directives based on Article 137 (ex Article 118A) of the EC Treaty contain minimum requirements which must be transposed into national law in the Member States.
No. The only exclusions from the scope of Directive 89/656/EEC are those given in Article 2(2). These include personal protective equipment for means of road transport.
(1) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989. (2) Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (OJ L 399, 30.12.1989) as amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993 (OJ L 220, 30.8.1993), Council Directive 93/95/EEC of 29 October 1993 (OJ L 276, 9.11.1993) and Directive 96/58/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 3 September 1996 (OJ L 236, 18.9.1996). (3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
(2001/C 340 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1218/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Council
(11 April 2001)
Subject: Integrated policy against crime
I am referring to the Council’s reply to my Written Question E-3889/00 (1). The Council establishes that the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam raise potential problems, related to the division of responsibility between the first and third pillar. Does the Council agree that this ambiguous situation should be clarified at the political level, before serious problems arise between the services involved and before other damage is done to the detriment of the image of the European Union and the interests of its citizens?
If so, what initiative does the Council propose?
Is my interpretation of the Council’s answer to my first and second questions correct when I conclude that the tasks of Eurojust encompass all types of crime, including judicial cooperation in matters concerning criminal investigations regarding the financial interests of the EC, so called EC fraud? This would be the constitutional consequence of the creation of the third pillar and it would avoid duplication of effort.
(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 174.
Reply
(20 July 2001)
In its reply to the Honourable Member’s previous question on the same subject (1) the Council confirmed that difficulties could arise from the Treaties’ division of responsibility between the European Union’s first and third pillars; it pointed out that this state of affairs was the result of the political decisions that had led to the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam. The Council seeks to ensure that the Treaties in their present form are complied with.
With regard to the tasks of Eurojust, it may be noted that the initiative of the Portuguese Republic, the French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Belgium with a view to the adoption of a Council Decision setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious organised crime was submitted to the European Parliament for its opinion. Article 5(f) of the Decision includes among Eurojust’s responsibilities ‘the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, as defined in the Convention of 26 July 1995 and in the Protocols thereto of 29 November 1996, 19 June 1997 and 27 September 1997’. Article 16, which deals with the relations between Eurojust and its partners, states C 340 E/198 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
among other things that the Commission (European Anti-Fraud Office) may, on a case-by-case basis, be involved in the processing of a case, either on the initiative of Eurojust or at its own request, where the national members concerned do not oppose such participation (2).
(1) Written Question E-3889/00. (2) OJ C 243, 24.8.2000, pp. 15 to 20.
(2001/C 340 E/227) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1219/01 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(24 April 2001)
Subject: New road bridge over the Havel river crosses an area protected under the Habitats Directive
The Brandenburg Land government is planning to build a new motorway feeder road from Rathenow to the A2 motorway through an area listed under the Habitats Directive.
1. Has the Commission been informed about the violation of the area’s protected status by the planning of this motorway feeder road?
If so, what procedural measures has it asked the Brandenburg Land government to take?
2. Has the Commission gathered, from its contacts with the Brandenburg Land government, that a more environmentally acceptable variant is not to be taken into account in the route planning procedure now pending, presumably because it is politically undesirable?
If so, has the Commission urged that the modified zero option (extension of the existing B102 major road, possibly including a Brandenburg by-pass) be included?
3. Is the Commission aware that all the preliminary tests on the environmental acceptability of this infringement of the area’s natural resources have been condemned by local naturalists as unqualified and defective, because important facts have simply been disregarded or under-valued?
4. Is the Commission aware that, if local experts had been involved, it would have been possible to avoid violating the protected area and constructing an artificial corridor for the new road?
What measures is the Commission taking in this connection to ensure that the avoidance principle is applied?
5. Are there any plans to employ EU funds to subsidise this road project?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(20 June 2001)
The Commission has received a complaint concerning the planned new road bridge and motorway feeder road in Brandenburg/Germany. According to the complainant, the bridge and the road are being planned adjacent to the nature conservation reserve ‘Untere Havel Süd’ in Brandenburg. In the view of the complainant, the affected area should be part of a proposed Site of Community Importance (pSCI). According to the complainant, a certain part of this area, which deserved inclusion in the pSCI was excluded to enable the project to proceed.
In order to assess the case properly, it is necessary to carry out an in-depth technical assessment of the information submitted by the complainant. An answer to questions 1 to 4 can be provided after the assessment will have been completed and final conclusions will have been drawn by the competent services. Notwithstanding an apparently comprehensive nomination of pSCIs for the Land of Brandenburg, the Commission will address an information request to the German Government if the assessment shows that Community law is likely to have been infringed in the current case. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/199
The Commission, in principle, is not involved in the selection and implementation of individual projects. However, according to the information received from the Member State, no European Regional Development funding is envisaged for this project.
(2001/C 340 E/228) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1225/01 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(26 April 2001)
Subject: Enlargement of Ferrol harbour (outer harbour)
Is the Commission aware of the fact that Ferrol’s planned outer harbour is to be constructed in an area protected under the Natura 2000 Network?
Is it aware of the complaints made by official bodies, fishermen’s associations and NGOs against the plans for Ferrol’s outer harbour which indicate the seriousness of the physical, environmental, social and employment-related impact of the project and make the point that such a project is not really necessary?
Does it not think that the project should be scrapped and that the EU funding which has been allocated to it should be withdrawn?
Does it intend to protect the Natura 2000 area without giving way over any of the criteria which it itself established or over the boundaries of the area, since that would set an extremely serious precedent which would render Natura 2000 meaningless and seriously jeopardise the integrity of the Natura 2000 network in Galicia and throughout Spain?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(26 June 2001)
The Commission became aware of the situation the Honourable Member is referring to through two complaints.
It has verified that the area where the project is planned has been proposed by Spain as a site (ES 1110002 ‘Costa Artaba’) for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). The area contains 28 different habitat types listed in Annex I to the Directive, including seven priority types. It was also identified as a site of Community importance for birds (SCI No 5) in the SEO/BirdLife 1998 IBA inventory. The site is also important as a place of hibernation for certain migratory species of seabirds and waders.
As part of its examination of the two complaints, the Commission recently contacted the Spanish authorities to ask for their comments on the reported situation and for details of the project.
At present, the only information the Commission has is that supplied by the complainants. However, should the Honourable Member be able to send it any further information on the reported project, the Commission would certainly examine it closely.
The Commission is unable to say at this point whether or not Community law has been infringed, as it has yet to receive a reply from the Spanish authorities (including the environmental impact assessment). Once it has that information, it will examine it to check that the relevant Community legislation is being observed in this particular instance.
The Commission is not involved in the selection of each individual project co-financed through the Structural Funds, and has asked the Spanish authorities for additional information in this area.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. C 340 E/200 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/229) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1232/01 by Carlos Candal (PSE) to the Commission
(10 April 2001)
Subject: Restructuring the Directorate-General for Fisheries
The author of this question would like the Commission to provide information about plans to restructure the Directorate-General for Fisheries.
This restructuring is presumably motivated chiefly by the need to make the Commission’s services more efficient by rationalisation and also to preserve the internal balance in the distribution of responsibilities between senior officials from the various Member States, and notably from those with stronger traditions in the relevant sectors of activity. Will the Commission say whether all these considerations are being taken into account in the restructuring of the Directorate-General in question?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(17 May 2001)
The reorganisation of the Directorate-General for Fisheries has aimed indeed to further improve the functioning of the Commission. The balance in the distribution of responsibilities between senior officials reflects their competence in the various fields of the Common Fisheries Policy.
The interests of all Member States, including those with stronger traditions in the relevant sectors of activity, are safeguarded, as in the past, at all times by the Commission acting in accordance with the Treaties.
(2001/C 340 E/230) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1233/01 by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 April 2001)
Subject: Investment aid to farmers’ joint undertakings
Farmers are entitled to receive investment aid to help them purchase shared machinery. In Finland, however, subsidy applications have been turned down from farmers’ joint undertakings having legal personality, such as limited companies, partnerships, cooperatives and associations. On the other hand, investment aid can be granted to machinery consortia in which each farmer participating in an application for machinery is required to make his own individual application. This leads to serious difficulties in obtaining machinery, arranging loans, bookkeeping, machine maintenance and repair, etc. It would be more flexible and logical for farmers in many respects if they could form their own legal entities of which they were the sole members and which could apply for machinery, manage it and keep the accounts relating to it.
In the light of the above:
Is the Finnish authorities’ interpretation of EU legislation correct?
What measures does the Commission propose to take to ensure that farmers’ cooperation for the purchase of machinery can be made more flexible and effective while at the same time reducing bureaucracy?
What legislative measures does the Commission propose to take to remedy the situation? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/201
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2001)
Finland notified in autumn 2000 the Decision of Council of State on rural development (Aid No N 97/00, N 160/00 and N 264/00). This legislation, that refers both to co-financed investments and nationally funded investments was approved by the Commission the 9 October 2000.
According to the explanation provided from the Finnish authorities on the notified legislation, the investments in machinery are funded purely from national funds. Furthermore the Finnish authorities have decided that investments in machinery made by machinery chains or other farmers’ associations are not eligible if the associations in question do not practice farming. This decision is the responsibility of the Finnish authorities and the financing of the acquisition of machinery is only made through national funds. The Commission cannot comment on this.
(2001/C 340 E/231) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1237/01 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(26 April 2001)
Subject: Whaling on the Faeroe Islands (Denmark)
For some time now the Faeroe Islands’ bloody tradition of hunting pilot whales has been the object of widespread public indignation.
That being so, I should like to ask the Commission the following questions:
1. Under S. 1 of the German Animal Protection Act, for example, it is illegal to do harm to an animal without a valid reason. The Faeroe Islanders’ whale hunts subject whole schools of long-finned pilot whales to a bestial fight to the death. Even pregnant females and new-born calves are killed. How can this be reconciled with the European concept of animal protection?
2. Is it true that, when the slaughter of whole families of pilot whales is mentioned, Denmark refers to the Faeroe Islands’ autonomy in internal matters (cultural affairs), but that these North Atlantic Islands receive funding support to the tune of some € 140 million per year?
3. Public opinion polls show that the Danish population is opposed to the killing of whales on the Faeroe Islands. International health organisations have also warned against the consumption of pilot whale meat, which is contaminated with heavy metals. How can it be that all these facts are being ignored?
4. Is it true that a large proportion of the meat from these whales is not eaten but ends up on rubbish tips?
5. What reasons did Denmark have for being the only EU country at the last IWC conference to vote against the establishment of a whale protection zone between Australia and New Zealand, thus giving support to Norway and Japan, which are in favour of whaling?
6. Former whaling countries in the EU, such as Portugal, Spain and the UK, have long abandoned their whaling traditions and not suffered any cultural loss as a result. Does the Commission agree that the Faeroe Islands should do likewise? C 340 E/202 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(20 June 2001)
Cetaceans are strictly protected by the Habitats Directive (1), which requires Member States to take measures to ensure a favourable conservation status for them. However, the EC Treaty does not apply to the Faeroe Islands (2), which means that nature protection provisions based on the EC Treaty do not apply there either.
The Community does not support any form of cetacean hunting or of trade in products obtained through that activity. The Commission has no specific information on the presence of contaminants in the meat of cetaceans or on the final destination of such meat.
The Commission has long supported a definitive ban on commercial whaling (3). However, a difference of opinion among the Member States has prevented the Community from adopting a common position on its membership of the International Whaling Commission.
With regard to the other points, and particularly questions 2 and 5, it would be for the Danish authorities to answer the questions put by the Honourable Member, as the Commission is unable to do so.
(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992). (2) Documents concerning the accession to the European Communities of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Kingdom of Norway and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Act concerning the conditions of accession and the adjustments to the Treaties, Part Two Adjustments to the Treaties, Title II Other adjustments, Article 27 (OJ L 73, 27.3.1972). EC Treaty, Article 299(6)(a) (formerly Article 227). (3) Commission communication to the Council concerning the conservation of whales within the framework of the International Whaling Commission, COM(92) 316 final.
(2001/C 340 E/232) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1239/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(26 April 2001)
Subject: Distribution of new cars
The current rules for the distribution of new cars (the so-called ‘block exemption’) are under review. What measures are in place to prevent manufacturers from taking tighter control of their market before the revised rules are imposed? Does the Commission have evidence of any such action by manufacturers?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(12 June 2001)
The Honourable Member’s question refers to car manufacturers taking tighter control of their market. The Commission presumes that the Honourable Member has in mind those car manufacturers that choose to reduce their reliance on a franchised dealer network in favour of directly owned distribution centres.
The Commission would like to take this opportunity to emphasise that Commission Block Exemption Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (1) does not dictate which of the many available legitimate sales methods a company may adopt; it merely stipulates that a carmaker who elects to sell via a selective and exclusive distribution network must adhere to a set of specific rules. The provisions in the Regulation that give a dealer protection against premature termination of his contract are principally intended to counterbalance the high degree of manufacturer power inherent in a selective and exclusive distribution system operating through dealerships and do not aim to favour sales via a network dealership over direct sales, or vice versa. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/203
The Commission would also underline that the restructuring of dealership networks is a normal commercial decision, and one whose essential legitimacy is recognised in the Regulation. The main rules governing the right to terminate a dealership will be set out in an individual dealer’s contract, and will be subject to any over-riding rules of national law. Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 provides additional protection by stipulating that a manufacturer wishing to terminate a dealership must give two years’ notice, or one year’s notice should a re-structuring of the dealership network become necessary. In case of dispute, the Regulation provides for reference to an expert third party or an arbitrator, without prejudice to the parties’ right to apply to a national court.
The Commission notes that several manufacturers have carried out network re-structuring in recent years, and it is aware that DaimlerChrysler is currently re-structuring its network in the United Kingdom. Although most of this re-organisation would seem to simply involve the merging of existing exclusive sales territories and the consequent termination of dealerships, the Commission understands that DaimlerCh- rysler is taking direct control of Mercedes sales and marketing in several metropolitan areas.
The Commission is also aware that certain british Mercedes dealers have taken DaimlerChrysler to court in the United Kingdom, alleging a breach of contract. While the british courts have the necessary legal competence to apply the Regulation should this be necessary, the Commission would be pleased to answer any questions that the british judges might put as to its interpretation, pursuant to the Notice on Co- operation with National Courts (2).
(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995. The Commission adopted an Evaluation Report on Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 on 15 November 2000. The report is available on the Internet at http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/car_sector/ distribution/eval_reg_1475_95/report/#report. (2) OJ C 39, 13.2.1993.
(2001/C 340 E/233) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1243/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(26 April 2001)
Subject: Relations between the ECB and central banks in the eurozone
In the context of the debate in various Member States, including Germany, Belgium and Austria, where governments are discussing the possibility of creating either a supervisory body independent of their respective central banks, or a single supervisory body for the banking, securities and insurance sectors, the European Central Bank has defended the financial supervisory role played by the central banks in the eurozone. In the opinion of the ECB, the fact that the central banks of eleven countries that share the same currency have lost control over the creation of money does not imply a conflict between their new banking supervisory tasks and their monetary policy functions.
What is the Commission’s position with regard to the possibilities being discussed by these Member States? What is the likelihood, in the future, of conflicts of interest or centres of concentration of power, should the central banks adopt less rigorous policies than are necessary to achieve the objective of price stability in the event of a crisis in the banking system?
What steps is the Commission taking to encourage both the creation of links between the ECB and the central banks of the eurozone, and other means of cooperation and information exchange between these institutions?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(2 July 2001)
The debate on the relationship between the central banking function and the supervisory function has a long history. The debate revolves around differing views on the likely interactions between a central bank’s role as a supervisor and its role in conducting monetary policy. On one side, it is argued that the C 340 E/204 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
knowledge acquired by a central bank in its day-to-day dealings with the banking system enhances its effectiveness as a financial supervisor. On the other side, it is argued that responsibility for the smooth functioning of the financial system (including the possible need to provide emergency lending assistance) risks interfering with the central bank’s freedom of action in the conduct of monetary policy.
The fact that the two models supervision independent from the central bank and supervision within the central bank are represented in the Community, suggests that the arguments for or against either model are not conclusive. Nevertheless, it is the case that the introduction of the euro, combined with processes of globalisation, technological change and deregulation, is leading to rapid and on-going changes in the financial markets. As a result, the supervisory framework must be kept under constant review to ensure that it remains appropriate.
In this context, two reports have been made by the Economic and Finance Committee to Finance Ministers over the last year the first on crisis prevention and the second on crisis management. Both reports have stressed that, while the existing institutional arrangements have served well, the practical functioning of those arrangements must be enhanced. A series of recommendations have been made to that effect. Many of these relate to the need for improved co-ordination and exchange of information among the relevant authorities (central banks, Ministries, and supervisory authorities) at cross-sectoral, national, and European levels.
Priority must now be given to ensuring that these recommendations are implemented.
In the longer-term, however, a more far-reaching rationalisation of current arrangements may be necessary. Without pre-judging the model of supervision which may ultimately prove desirable, the issue of whether the stability of an integrated Community financial system can best be assured by having a single forum, rather than several, for co-ordination and information exchange must be studied carefully.
(2001/C 340 E/234) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1249/01 by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(26 April 2001)
Subject: Competition
A major threat to competition and diversity currently exists in the field of goods transport. Many large, state-owned firms such as Deutsche Bahn and the SNCF compete on deregulated markets in other countries, with the aid of state funds. This results in a distortion of competition because other firms cannot compete under the same conditions. What does the Commission plan to do to prevent this distortion?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(6 July 2001)
The recently adopted Directive 2001/12/EC (1) is aimed at developing competition in the rail sector, in particular for goods transport. This Directive, which is still to be implemented by the Member States, requires amongst others that railway undertakings shall keep separate accounts for rail freight and passenger services. I also makes it clear that public funds paid for public service activities may not be transferred to activities relating to any other transport service or any other activity. In addition to legislative measures the Commission is also making use of the competition law, in particular state aid rules as a mean to enhance competition in the rail sector.
As regards the application of European competition law (e.g. rules on antitrust and state aid) the Commission is actively pursuing a number of cases based on either complaints or ex-officio procedures. Although the Commission is not challenging the legal and factual possibilities for publicly owned enterprises to invest and expand commercially it will, under these rules, have to satisfy itself that when 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/205
such an undertaking engages in further economic activities, state funds earmarked for, inter alia, public services, restructuring or infrastructure investments is not used to unfairly fund aggresive commercial activities on markets open to competition.
Accordingly, the Commission is further certainly ready to look with the necessary diligence into issues like the one the Honourable Member mentions provided that substantiated information on potential infringements of competition rules is put at its disposal.
(1) Directive 2001/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ L 75, 15.3.2001).
(2001/C 340 E/235) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1253/01 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission
(26 April 2001)
Subject: Failure to comply with the Habitats Directive in the case of Posidonia oceanica in Valencia (Spain)
The Government of the Community of Valencia (the Generalitat) has already put forward its official proposal for sites of Community interest for the Natura 2000 network. In the proposal the Generalitat has omitted most of the feeding-grounds of Posidonia oceanica in Valencia. Although a few are included off the Alicante coast, the proposal does not consider of interest major expanses of this marine plant in the provinces of Valencia and Castellón.
In its representations to the Spanish National Hydrological Plan (PHN) the WWF/ADENA organisation submitted a document (also sent to the Commission) drawing attention to the danger that many of the 71 areas eligible for declaration as sites of Community interest would not be taken into account by the Spanish authorities when designating Natura 2000 areas. I myself had occasion to inform Mrs Wallström (1) that the process had not only already begun in Spain but was also likely to be based on the content of the present PHN.
Now action by the Valencian Government in the case of Posidonia oceanica has confirmed the situation as stated.
Bearing in mind that Annex I of the Habitats Directive, 92/43/EC (2), includes ‘Posidonia beds’ as ‘natural habitat types of Community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation’, and that the Commission has taken legal action against Spain for its scanty designation of special areas of conservation for birds,
Does the Commission not agree that there has been a clear violation of the Habitats and Birds Directives by the Valencian Government in the case of the Posidonia beds?
What steps will the Commission be taking to require Spain to protect its Posidonia beds?
In what way does the Commission intend to influence the Spanish PHN to prevent situations such as that described above and so ensure that no damage is done to any site eligible for designation as a site of Community interest for the Natura 2000 network?
(1) Question Time, February 2001 part-session. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. C 340 E/206 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(21 June 2001)
The Community considers the ‘Posidona beds’ (Posidona oceanica) habitat referred by the Honourable Member to be a priority, as stipulated in Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild flora and fauna.
This concerns a natural habitat which is in danger of disappearing, the Community having particular responsibility for its conservation in view of the natural range which falls within Community territory.
The Directive establishes a European ecological network containing special conservation areas called ‘Natura 2000.’ The Member States are thus obliged to contribute to this network by designating sites hosting these natural habitats.
The list of sites selected as sites of Community importance must be finalised by the Commission based on a draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with the Member States. This first list is drawn up after the Member States have sent the relevant information and their analysis. This analysis is confirmed by the European Environment Agency’s Nature Topic Centre and the results are finally adopted during the special biogeographical seminars which are open to non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
Information regarding future sites to be protected in the Mediterranean is continuously submitted to the Commission. A biogeographical seminar for the Mediterranean is scheduled to take place before the end of 2001. Therefore, any pronouncement on whether or not the Spanish proposals are adequate regarding the protection of the ‘Posidona beds’ is certainly premature.
As regards the National Hydrological Plan, it should be noted that this plan has been the subject of several information exchanges between the Commission and the Spanish authorities, the latter reaffirming their commitment to comply with Community law applicable throughout implementation of the plan.
(2001/C 340 E/236) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1262/01 by Simon Murphy (PSE) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Proposed precious metals directive
Will the Commission categorically deny that it is putting any pressure on applicant countries to include the Commission’s draft directive Articles made of precious metals (gold, silver, platinum, palladium), harmonisation of essential requirements, COD930472 in their acquis communautaire procedures?
What is the Commission’s assessment of the latest state of play in respect of this draft directive?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(1 June 2001)
The Union did not request the candidate countries to comply with the draft Directive relating to articles of precious metals (1) in the context of the negotiations. Indeed, the Proposal for Directive is a draft and it is therefore not yet part of the acquis. The accession negotiations focus on the terms under which the applicants will adopt, implement and enforce the acquis.
However, the Commission has informed the candidate countries, when so requested, on the Proposal for the Directive as well as on amended proposal adopted by the Commission in 1994 (2). 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/207
The Commission notes that since 1998 the Council has not discussed the proposal. Its services will examine what steps to take in the light of the current situation.
(1) OJ C 318, 25.11.1993. (2) OJ C 209, 29.7.1994.
(2001/C 340 E/237) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1263/01 by Eva Klamt (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Attempts by non-EU nationals to gain illegal entry to the UK
German haulage contractors report that illegal immigrants, with the aid of people smugglers, endeavour to board lorries bound for the UK at the borders of transit countries en route from Germany to the UK. The hauliers claim that the French, Belgian and Netherlands authorities are aware of this situation but that nothing is done. The UK authorities, on the other hand, search lorries specifically for illegal immigrants and fine the haulage firms £2000 for each illegal immigrant discovered. This fine is also payable even if the drivers or firms can prove that they have checked their vehicles. The persons apprehended have to be taken back across the border and released, only to make another attempt at illegal entry immediately, while the national border authorities look on.
Is the Commission aware of the situation described above and is it an accurate account?
Do the fines which haulage firms are required to pay the UK in respect of illegal immigrants affect the operation of the internal market?
What measures will the Commission take in response to the lack of cooperation in preventing illegal immigration on the part of the French, Belgian and Netherlands authorities, and to the fines imposed by the UK?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(30 May 2001)
The Commission is well aware of the situation that illegal immigrants, quite often with the aid of people smugglers, attempt to board lorries bound for the United Kingdom in neighbouring Member States, especially Belgium, France and the Netherlands. The tragedy of Dover where, in June 2000, 58 Chinese nationals suffocated to death in the lorry in which they were clandestinely travelling, illustrated in a most shocking way the complex problem to face. According to information available to the Commission, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have recently started technical discussions on how to improve the prevention of illegal crossings across the Channel.
Regarding the question whether the existing british legislation on carrier’s liability affects the operation of the internal market, especially for haulage contractors, the Commission has already stated on previous occasions that, in its view, this legislation does not lead to an infringement of Community law. In that connection, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the answers given by the Commission to Written Questions P-4042/00 by Mrs Doyle (1) and E-1110/01 by Mr Konrad (2).
(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 220. (2) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 205. C 340 E/208 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/238) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1268/01 by Richard Corbett (PSE), Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR), Roy Perry (PPE-DE) and William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Council
(27 April 2001)
Subject: Respect of the Vienna Convention in Saudi Arabia
Does the Council consider that Saudi Arabia is fulfilling its obligations under the Vienna Convention, regarding consular access to remand prisoners?
Reply
(20 July 2001)
The Council is not aware of any problems in Saudi Arabia concerning access by consular authorities of Member States of the European Union to remand prisoners who are citizens of the EU.
(2001/C 340 E/239) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1269/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(26 April 2001)
Subject: Biological treatment of biodegradable waste
1. Has the Commission yet had the opportunity to assess the findings of L.M.Chu and A.D. Bradshaw regarding the value of pulverised refuse fines as a substitute in land reclamation (Journal of Applied Ecology 1996, 33, pp. 851-865)?
2. What conclusions has the Commission drawn from this work with regard to the value of such material in the restoration of old and dismissed quarries and mines and similar derelict sites not intended for food or fodder crop production, and which can be expected to require applications well in excess of 200 tonnes per hectare?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2001)
The general legislative framework for waste management at Community level is in Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1) as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (2).
Article 4 of that Directive states that:
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and in particular:
without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals,
without causing a nuisance through noise or odours,
without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.
The scientific publication mentioned by the Honourable Member does not address at all the problem of long term effects of pulverised refuse fines (PRF) on the environment, in particular groundwater pollution. There are no data in the publication about heavy metal or organic compound concentrations in PRF and what their fate would be in the long term once PRF is spread on derelict land. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/209
The authors themselves recognise that ‘The only problem [of PRF] is the degree to which it may in some cases not meet national or state requirements for toxic elements’.
The Commission is of the opinion that the use of PRF on land (whatever the land use or characteristics may be) should be subject to close scrutiny in order to avoid long-term environmental pollution. A restriction on the quantity of PRF (or other wastes with similar characteristics, for that matter) to be spread on land per year and per hectare may be a proportionate measure to achieve this objective.
(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. (2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
(2001/C 340 E/240) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1270/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(2 May 2001)
Subject: Sale of films in packages (block booking)
The vast majority of those working in the European cinema industry are opposed to the sale of films in packages as practised by some distributors despite this being both illegal and condemned by professionals in the industry.
A number of European competition courts have already condemned the practice of block booking since attempting to sell something you possess and forcing the purchase of set packages are not one and the same thing.
Can the Commission say in what way the EU can protect itself at Community level against the illegal practices of some cinematographic distributors whereby they force the sale of films in packages, what Community provisions there are to protect professionals working in the cinema industry against such abusive practices and what it would propose to do against this tendency to engage in abusive practises displayed by some Community cinematographic distributors?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(20 June 2001)
The Honourable Member asks the Commission how the Community may prevent alleged abusive block booking practices by cinematographic distributors. The Honourable Member also asks what mechanisms do professionals from the cinema industry have at their disposal in order to challenge such practices.
The Commission understands the question as referring to the tying of the acquisition of the right to publicly exhibit a certain film for a certain period to the obligation of acquiring the right to exhibit an additional set of films. The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it has been confronted in the past with allegations concerning this type of practices but no evidence has ever been produced so as to justify the Commission pursuing a case in this domain.
From a Community competition law perspective, the practice consisting in tying the sale of one product to another may be considered in certain circumstances as an infringement of the competition rules enshrined in Articles 81 and 82 (ex Articles 85 and 86) of the EC Treaty.
Article 81, paragraph 1(e), of the EC Treaty prohibits all agreements and concerted practices between undertakings which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the restriction of competition, and in particular those which make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts. C 340 E/210 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Article 82 (d) of the EC Treaty prohibits any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it insofar as it may affect trade between Member States, where such abuse consists in making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
Pursuant to Article 9, paragraph 2, of Council Regulation No 17 (1), the Commission has the power to apply Article 81, paragraph 1, and Article 82 of the EC Treaty. The Commission should underline that, pursuant to Article 9, paragraph 3, of Regulation 17, the authorities of the Member States remain competent to apply the EC Treaty provisions as long as the Commission has not initiated any procedure.
The Commission may exercise its powers either upon its own initiative or upon application of third parties. Those entitled to make application are Member States and natural or legal persons who claim a legitimate interest.
Therefore, if the professionals from the cinema industry the Honourable Member refers to in his question are able to produce any evidence on the alleged practices by cinematographic distributors which they consider to be abusive, the Commission would urge them to complain to the national competition authorities or to the Commission. Provided that the requirements of Articles 81 or 82 are fulfilled, the national authorities or the Commission will act so as to bring the infringements to the Community competition rules to an end.
(1) Council Regulation No 17, First Regulation implementing articles 85 [now 81] and 86 [now 82] of the Treaty (OJ 13, 21.2.1962).
(2001/C 340 E/241) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1271/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(2 May 2001)
Subject: Privatisation in Eastern European candidate states
Even when significant progress has been made in the negotiations for the accession of Eastern European countries to the European Union, something which it is to be hoped will be in the not too distant future, the satisfactory conclusion of the privatisation process in these countries will continue to present an important challenge.
The future of these countries’ economies will depend on there being sufficient investment capacity to facilitate the privatisation process and a technological contribution to render the privatised enterprises competitive even if in some cases no private investors may be found.
Can the Commission say whether it is taking significant measures to assist the process of privatisation in Eastern European candidate states through special incentive measures for entities in the current Member States of the European Union so that they help the economies of said candidate states thus facilitating their overall integration into the EU?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(20 June 2001)
There are two economic criteria for accession: the country must have a functioning market economy and it must be able to withstand the competitive pressure within the Community.
With regard to the second of these criteria, the Commission’s Agenda 2000 noted that ‘privatisation has progressed at different rates and the process remains to be completed.’ (1) 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/211
Recently the pace of privatisation has quickened in several of the candidate countries. Major privatisations and the resulting reorganisations particularly those involving heavy industry and the energy sector are complex processes with many repercussions, particularly social repercussions.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) is attracted initially by privatisation policies and subsequently by new businesses. Increased protection of FDI has encouraged financial flows to Central and Eastern European countries. Some countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic are now attracting substantial FDI. In others, such as Hungary, FDI has been attracted more to ‘greenfield’ ventures than to the privatisation that has taken place.
There are assistance programmes, notably under the PHARE programme, to facilitate restructuring and privatisation (for example, the Ricop programme in Romania).
As part of its current twinning operations, the Community is also funding projects to assist the privatisation of small and medium-sized enterprises in the Czech Republic and in the energy sector in Lithuania.
(1) Agenda 2000: ‘For a stronger and wider Union’ COM(97) 2000 final Bulletin Supplement No 5/97.
(2001/C 340 E/242) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1276/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(2 May 2001)
Subject: Charter to protect the Alboran Sea
A group of experts has launched an initiative for a Charter of Rights for the Alboran Sea in order to preserve its resources, improve its use and control its environmental quality.
Two thirds of the world’s oil tanker traffic goes through the Alboran Sea, causing major spillages in what is a closed sea, akin to a massive lake, whose environmental quality is very difficult preserve.
In view of the ambitious objectives of the Charter of Rights for the Alboran Sea with a view to preserving a natural system whose environmental quality is in great danger, can the Commission affiliate itself to the Charter, in whatever manner it sees fit, in order to help ensure that the latter is effective and that its objectives find the requisite financial support to guarantee their realisation?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(6 June 2001)
Unfortunately the Commission had not been aware of the proposed ‘Charter for the Alborán Sea’ referred to by the Honourable Member. This makes any judgment concerning possible Community cooperation premature.
The island of Alborán has been put forward by Spain as an area of Community relevance under the Habitats Directive (1). In time this area would become a special conservation area included in the Natura 2000 network.
The Commission is fully aware that the effective implementation of Community instruments aiming at activities having an impact on the marine environment offers certain scope for greater cooperation among the operators on the ground, and other interested parties. C 340 E/212 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
This is even more important if one considers that effective protection of marine biodiversity requires an integrated strategy in order to confront the many pressures with which it is threatened. The development of such a strategy, which is based on broad cooperation with other parties, and the use of appropriate scientific tools, is already considered to be a priority by the Commission (2).
(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992). As amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (OJ L 1, 1.1.1995). (2) Communication from the Commission on the sixth programme for Community action on the environment Proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision introducing the Community action programme on the environment for 2001-2010, COM(2001) 31 final.
(2001/C 340 E/243) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1279/01 by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Substitute for feedingstuffs containing animal protein
In view of the need to change animal feed as a consequence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and find a substitute for MBM (meat and bone meal), and given the possibility in the countries of the European Union for the satisfactory cultivation of oilseeds and protein crops (alfalfa, rape, peas and other crops), which require little water and would provide a useful source of vegetable protein, what action will the EU take to promote these crops and thus help make vegetable protein available in Europe for the production of animal feed, thereby reducing Europe’s heavy dependency on third countries?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(8 June 2001)
The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the Commission’s communication to Parliament and the Council (1) ‘Options to promote the cultivation of plant proteins in the EU’, which is based on a working paper (2).
(1) COM(2001) 148 final. (2) SEC(2001) 431.
(2001/C 340 E/244) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1282/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 May 2001)
Subject: Property taxation
Speaking at a Belgian Presidency tax seminar on 26 March 2001, the Director-General for Taxation and the Customs Union, Michel Vanden Abeele, suggested that there was an ‘intermediate zone’ where there is currently no tax harmonisation but where the need for harmonisation could be discussed, such as company taxation, which the Commission was actively looking at, and also property taxation.
1. What steps has the Commission taken so far in order to consider whether there is a need for harmonisation of property taxes?
2. Has the Commission followed up the study performed for the Commission by Arthur Anderson, ‘Study on the application of Value Added Tax to the property sector’ (N XXI/96/CB-3021) and if so, what conclusions has it drawn? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/213
3. If the Commission is considering the need for harmonisation of property taxation, could it indicate precisely which areas it is looking at? Is the Commission primarily concerned with the VAT system and VAT rates on building land, supplies of new buildings or renovation and repairs, for example, or is it also considering harmonisation of levies of real estate transfer taxes or stamp duties? What does the Commission believe is the best way to proceed with property taxation?
4. The study by Arthur Anderson identified some problem areas and perceived distortions in the UK. On VAT provisions the study found numerous problems of interpretation involving provisions on protected buildings, relevant charitable buildings and rent adjustments on disposal of buildings, for example. It also perceived a distortion under the ‘option to tax’ regime, whereby a landlord has to opt to tax all leases in a building or none of them. Has the Commission considered any of these problem areas or perceived distortions, and would they fall under the scope of any Commission proposals in this field?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2001)
In his contribution to the seminar on the 2001 Belgian Presidency, on 26 March 2001, the Director- General for Taxation and the Customs Union stated that ‘an intermediate zone, in which some coordination is needed, concerns direct taxation applied to highly mobile tax bases, such as company taxation and capital taxation’ (translation of the French text of the transparency he used).
In his oral presentation, in French, Mr Vanden Abeele used the words ‘taxation mobilière’ (taxation of movable assets), not ‘taxation immobilière’ (taxation of immovable assets, or property taxation).
Property taxation was not mentioned. The Commission has no intention of carrying out any harmonisation of direct taxation, although as part of a system of VAT taxation at source, which remains our long-term objective, Community rules on VAT applicable to the property sector would, of course, need to be revised.
As to the study conducted by Arthur Andersen to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission takes the view that the results do not make the case for the need for legal initiatives in the short term to modernise and simplify the existing VAT system. This view is supported by reactions from representatives of the sector concerned.
The transparencies used in the presentation have been sent directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s General Secretariat.
(2001/C 340 E/245) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1287/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 May 2001)
Subject: Taxation Policy Group
1. Could the Commission please state what was discussed at the meeting of the Taxation Policy Group on 16 March 2001, and what was discussed at any meetings held between 2 March 2000 and 16 March 2001?
2. What future meetings of the Taxation Policy Group have been scheduled, and what matters are due to be discussed at upcoming meetings? C 340 E/214 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (7 June 2001)
1. The Eleventh meeting of the Taxation Policy Group on 5 May 2000 was mainly devoted to a discussion on the review of the provisions of the Code of Conduct for business taxation and an exchange of views on possible issues for further meetings of the Taxation Policy Group in 2000.
The Twelfth meeting of the Taxation Policy Group on 18 July 2000 was mainly devoted to a presentation by the German representatives of the German business tax reform, followed by a discussion, and to an exchange of views concerning one issue of the (ongoing) Commission company tax study (company tax obstacles to cross-border economic activity in the Single Market).
The Thirteenth meeting of the Taxation Policy Group on 6 October 2000 was mainly devoted to a discussion of the taxation of supplementary pensions and an exchange of views concerning one issue of the (ongoing) Commission company tax study (the effective levels of company taxation in the Community).
The Fourteenth meeting of the Taxation Policy Group on 16 March 2001 was mainly devoted to an exchange of views on future priorities of Community tax policy and a brief evaluation of the progress made concerning the new strategy to improve the operation of the VAT System within the context of the Internal Market.
2. The date and agenda of the next meeting of the Taxation Policy Group has not been fixed yet.
(2001/C 340 E/246) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1293/01 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 2001)
Subject: Light fittings supplied without connecting terminals (EN 60598-1/A13)
On 30 January 2001, the Commission published in the Official Journal an opinion within the framework of Council Directive 73/23/EEC relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (1). In that opinion, the Commission comes to the conclusion that electrical equipment manufactured in compliance with the EN 60598-1:1997 and EN 60598-1:1997/A13:1999 might still fail to comply with the essential requirement of the Low Voltage Directive. The opinion was delivered in response to a complaint to the Commission lodged by France concerning failure to supply connecting terminals with light fittings.
The Commission has been unable to find any acceptable solution to this problem since France lodged the complaint on 12 May 1995. Since then, one German company in particular has been put at a huge disadvantage. The facts of the case clearly demonstrate that France has erected a technical barrier to trade, all the more so since the relevant standard (EN 60598-1/A13) was adopted by the Cenelec Standardisation Committee TC 34Z by 17 votes to 1 (France voted against) and since products made in France and in other EU countries may continue to be sold in France without connecting terminals! What is more, no safety hazards have, to date, been proved. Live cables protrude only from ceilings or walls and are usually protected by connecting terminals. An additional connecting terminal to be supplied with the light fitting would simply be a further item to be added to Europe’s refuse mountain and does not constitute common practice in Europe. Without waiting for a the findings of a risk assessment procedure, the European Commission has issued a recommendation to the Member States which takes no account whatsoever of the facts of the case which are themselves the result of installation instructions which vary from one Member State to another.
1. Given this situation, will the Commission withdraw its opinion published on 30 January 2001 until a solution acceptable throughout the EU is found and grant manufacturers an appropriate transitional period until an EU-wide solution is presented?
2. What is the Commission’s attitude to this decision, which was not coordinated with Cenelec, which makes a laughing stock of the risk assessment procedure agreed by the Commission, Cenelec and industry?
(1) OJ C 29, 30.1.2001, p. 2. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/215
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(19 June 2001)
The Honourable Member’s question concerns notification of a safeguard clause in accordance with Article 9 of Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (1), as amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993 (2) known as the Low Voltage Directive.
It has become clear in this context that the harmonised standard EN60598-1 on light fittings does not fully meet the safety objectives of the Low Voltage Directive. In 1998, the Commission asked the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (Cenelec) to amend the standard in question. Adopted in 1999, amendment 13 to this standard did not provide the necessary guarantees that electrical equipment manufactured in accordance with it conforms to the essential requirements of the Directive. Under these circumstances, and absent an amendment that takes account of the safety concerns of the national market surveillance authorities and of the Commission, it is essential that the Commission’s opinion is upheld.
The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the draft opinion has been submitted to the national market surveillance authorities for consultation and that these authorities have welcomed the proposed approach. This opinion does not rule out the possibility of a subsequent amendment to the harmonised standard to bring it in line with the requirements of the Directive and to take account of the opinions expressed by all the parties concerned.
The Commission will continue to encourage Cenelec to reach a suitable technical solution. Furthermore, it will bring up this subject again with the national authorities at the next meeting on the Low Voltage Directive under the administrative cooperation procedure, in order to ensure uniform application of the Directive on this point.
(1) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973. (2) OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.
(2001/C 340 E/247) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1303/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Employment rights for ministers of religion
Can the Commission detail for each Member State those which fail to confer employment rights on ministers of religion and specify which religions are included in those exceptions?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(30 May 2001)
The application of labour law and employment rights to ministers of religion differs substantially between Member States. In some cases, ministers of religion are not covered by labour law because they do not have the status of an employee. In others, churches or other religious communities are exempted from the application of certain aspects of labour law. In addition, some legislative acts include special provisions for churches and religious communities.
The rules concerning the application of employment rights to ministers of religion in the Member States are therefore very complex. No systematic and detailed overview of the different situations exists. It is therefore not possible to specify which religions are included or not in each case. C 340 E/216 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/248) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1308/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission
(3 May 2001)
Subject: Official aid granted by the Valencian Regional Government to the ‘Terra Mítica’ theme park (Benidorm, Alicante)
The Valencian Press has reported that the Valencian Tourist Board has approved a collaboration agreement with the ‘Terra Mítica’ theme park whereby it is to pay a contribution of ESP 6 000 million to fund the park. The agreement has been interpreted in some quarters as a form of direct aid, although its exact terms have so far remained secret.
In addition, the Commission is still considering whether to institute proceedings on account of the official aid granted by the Valencian Generalitat (autonomous government) to ‘Terra Mítica’.
Does the Commission believe that the terms of the agreement between the Valencian Tourist Board and ‘Terra Mítica’ should be divulged so as to make it possible to determine whether the agreement constitutes official aid?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2001)
The Commission is also aware of the reports to which the Honourable Member refers and it takes the view that this aspect must be taken into account in the analysis which it will make of the matter.
(2001/C 340 E/249) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1312/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(3 May 2001)
Subject: Freedom of information in Italy and Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union reads:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
Can the Commission state whether Italy’s national law No 62 of 7 March 2001: ‘New rules on publishing and on publishing products and amendments to Law No 416 of 5 August 1981’, published in Italy’s Official Journal (Gazzetta Ufficiale) No 67 of 21 March 2001, is not in open breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(28 June 2001)
The Commission does not have sufficient facts at its disposal to answer the question put by the Honourable Member. It has approached the Italian authorities with a view to obtaining additional information and ascertaining the content of the provisions in question. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/217
(2001/C 340 E/250) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1319/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 May 2001)
Subject: System of licensing radio stations in the Attica basin
After many years of ambiguity in the law governing radio stations in Greece, the Greek Government adopted a licensing system. In the Attica basin, it issued licences for 20 radio stations which, in its view, is the maximum number that can operate on the available radio frequencies.
However, it did not issue licences to many stations with high audience ratings, a high turnover and a large number of staff. Following a number of protests, therefore, and a technical recommendation which met certain requirements laid down by the government itself, it raised the number of licences provisionally to 28. Again, however, several stations of recognised quality with high audience figures were not included. Meanwhile, reports by professors at the Athens Institute of Technology maintain that the number of frequencies can be increased to 35 without difficulty.
The Greek Government uses the National Broadcasting Council as a vehicle for issuing opinions based on various government technical recommendations, a situation which even led a pro-government member of the NBC to resign in protest against interference by the minister responsible.
1. In the light of Article 6(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union concerning fundamental human rights, and Article 11 of the Charter of Human Rights concerning freedom of the media, does the Commission consider that the Greek Government’s actions are consistent with European law?
2. Will the Commission address a recommendation to the Greek Government?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(29 June 2001)
The Commission recently received a complaint regarding the system of licensing of radio stations in the Attica basin. The Commission is in the course of examining this complaint and has asked the Greek authorities to provide it with additional information. Since the case presents a rather complex situation, it is too early to say yet whether the actions taken by the Greek government are consistent or not with European law. The Commission attaches great importance to the creation of a single radio broadcasting market within the Community and will pay due attention to this case.
(2001/C 340 E/251) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1325/01 by Arie Oostlander (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 May 2001)
Subject: 15-month prison sentence handed down to Mr Sotiris Bletsas for distributing information material financed by the Commission
In a resolution of 3 February 2001 the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL) in Dublin condemned the sentencing of Mr Sotiris Bletsas, a Greek national, by a court in Athens to 15 months’ imprisonment. Mr Sotiris Bletsas was convicted of disseminating ‘false information’ about a European minority language in Greece. However, this allegedly false information consisted of a reference to the existence of the Vlach language in information material produced by the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages concerning minority languages in Europe. This material is financed by the Commission. Moreover, the existence of Vlach is recognised in the Commission’s Euromosaic report. C 340 E/218 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Is the Commission aware of the conviction of Mr Sotiris Bletsas?
If so, does the Athens court’s decision violate the fundamental right to freedom of expression?
Is the Commission considering taking steps against Greece, a Member State?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(22 June 2001)
As indicated in its reply to Written Question E-0487/01 by Mr Wyn and Mr Knörr Borràs (1), the Commission is following this matter closely and has asked the Greek Government to provide it with further information and in particular a copy of the ruling.
The Commission is not in a position to comment until it has all the necessary information and is fully aware of the facts.
(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 125.
(2001/C 340 E/252) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1327/01 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission
(25 April 2001)
Subject: Animal research at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre
One of my constituents has raised the issue of the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) in the Netherlands, which is the only research laboratory in the European Union which still uses chimpanzees in animal research. There is increasing concern about the grossly inadequate conditions for keeping primates. I understand that BPRC is willing to improve housing conditions but claim that lack of money has prevented major improvements from being introduced. Its income comes from the European Commission, industry and the Dutch Government.
Would the Commission clarify its position on financing research projects involving primates in establishments such as the BPRC where the housing conditions are so poor?
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(18 June 2001)
The Honourable Member will be aware that all research in Europe involving the use of animals is subject to the Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (1) The Member States have responsibility to enforce this.
The Commission has under the various Community research programmes paid particular attention to animal welfare issues. The commitment of the Community institutions to fulfil their obligations regarding animal welfare requirements is clearly stipulated in Decision No 182/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 December 1998 concerning the Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) (2).
The funding of research involving animals is restricted under this programme with regard to animal experiments and tests on animals, which should, when ever possible, be replaced with in vitro or other alternative methods. An obligation is placed on all applicants of proposals to describe the procedures adopted to respect the principles of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) and to protect the welfare of animals. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/219
In addition, research on the development of alternatives to animal experiments is largely supported under this programme.
An ethical review has been implemented systematically under the Quality of Life programme (3) for proposals dealing with issues such as the use of non-human primates, generation of transgenic animals, etc. The ethical review panel includes, among others, representatives from animal welfare groups. The ethical review ensures that all research involving animals are conducted in accordance with Directive 86/ 609/CEE, in particular article 5. Furthermore, participants in research projects must seek the approval of the relevant ethics committees prior to the start of the research activities. The Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC), which is situated in the Community but independent of the Community, has engaged itself contractually to fulfil all national legal and ethical requirements.
It is the intention of the Commission to continue to fulfil its obligations regarding animal welfare requirements when formulating and implementing the next framework programme.
(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986. (2) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999. (3) OJ C 260, 18.8.1998.
(2001/C 340 E/253) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1329/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(25 April 2001)
Subject: Attica regional operational programme and earthquake-protection projects
The fifth major project under the regional operational programme for Attica is to repair the aftermath of the earthquake which hit Attica on 7 September 1999. The sum of € 94,63 million budgeted for measure 5.5 repairs to basic infrastructure under local government responsibility is considered inadequate to cover the damage and the reconstruction work to be undertaken by the local authorities in west Athens, the least developed and most underprivileged area of the Greek capital, which suffered the severest effects of that disastrous earthquake.
Will the Commission increase the funding provided for this measure?
Since the uppermost concern in the minds of the public is the protection of their property and their lives from further earthquakes, why does the Commission give priority in only a small number of local authority areas to preventive public projects such as the earthquake-protection programmes for buildings, mending the urban fabric, organised accommodation for earthquake victims, repair and construction of networks, microzoning studies, and shoring and demolition?
If measure 5.5 does not include aid for certain preventive projects to protect the public in addition to the restoration of public squares and buildings etc would the Commission then not assume a grave responsibility for failing to support the local authorities in attempting to provide effective protection in the event of another earthquake similar to the one in 1999, which claimed dozens of lives and destroyed thousands of homes?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(20 June 2001)
At its fifth priority axe ‘Repair of damages caused by 1999 earthquake’, the Attika regional operational programme (OP) for the 2000-2006 period, which was signed by the member of the Commission responsible for Regional Policy at the beginning of May 2001, provides for public expenditure of € 462 million of which a contribution of € 370 million comes from the European Regional Development Fund. C 340 E/220 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
The distribution of this amount between the different measures is the responsibility of the Greek authorities and will be set out in the programming complement to be prepared by the managing authority and approved by the OP monitoring committee. However, this OP already proposes the following indicative resources allocation between measures for the public expenditure:
(%)
Public expenditure Measure Description Axe 5 5.1 Repair of education and training infrastructures 28 5.2 Repair of health and welfare infrastructure 15,2 5.3 Repair of archaeology sites and monuments 2,7 5.4 Repair of other basic infrastructures 20,3 5.5 Repair of basic infrastructures of municipalities 20,5 5.6 Repair of productive infrastructures 4,5 5.7 Repair and development of urban infrastructures 8,7
The Greek authorities are also responsible for selecting individual projects within the scope of measure 5.5. Measure 5.7 provides also for action to clean up damaged urban sites, and prepare them for the building of new seismic-safe houses. The building of private houses is not itself an eligible expenditure for structural funds, on the basis of regulations in force.
The European Investment Bank (EIB) can also assist the Greek authorities with long term loans up to € 1 billion for the repair of damage caused by the earthquake of 1999 in Attika. A loan of € 300 million has already been approved by the EIB in December 1999, which can be also used for co-financing rebuilding or repair of private houses damaged by the earthquake.
(2001/C 340 E/254) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1337/01
by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 May 2001)
Subject: Dubbing of film soundtracks
Given that language is the principal means of communication and expression, cultural works such as films, can only be appreciated fully if they are shown in the original language whereas if the soundtrack is dubbed into another language and spoken by other actors, this may seriously detract from the identity and recognisable characteristics of the actors actually appearing on the screen. This effectively creates an artistic split and deceives the viewer, who sees one actor, and hears another. It would be possible to make a long list of actors whose artistic careers have suffered as a result of their scripts being dubbed into other languages using the voices of other actors.
Hence, the dubbing of film soundtracks in languages other than the authentic original undeniably detracts greatly from the quality of the films concerned particularly film classics, where scripts are mutilated, the quality of the original acting notably diminished and nuances of expression lost.
What view does the Commission take of unrestricted dubbing of films and can it say whether any legislation exists establishing rules and restrictions regarding dubbing? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/221
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (21 June 2001)
The Honourable Member has raised an important issue concerning the cultural integrity of cinema works, when dubbed into other languages. There is not any Community legislation establishing rules and restrictions regarding dubbing of films.
Whilst the Commission has not taken a position on this specific issue, it should be noted that it has, through the programme MEDIA (now replaced and updated by MEDIA PLUS) encouraged the circulation of non-national films throughout the Community. In addition, the issue of cultural diversity figures high on the Commission’s cultural agenda.
(2001/C 340 E/255) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1347/01 by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission (26 April 2001)
Subject: Rome Convention
Will the Commission please give a definite timetable for the presentation of its porposal, and also define the nature of that proposal (i.e. Green Paper or Draft Regulation), on the Rome Convention (II) on non- contractual obligations and outline its clear intentions with regard to consultation on what is widely known to be a contentious and long-awaited proposal?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (11 June 2001)
The Honourable Member raises the question of the amendment to the Rome Convention (II), concerning the possibility for laying down, at Community level, uniform rules of private international law relating to the applicable law to non-contractual obligations.
The issue of the applicable law to non-contractual obligations is a complex subject which is being carefully examined within the Commission.
The Commission has in mind in particular the problems associated with the special characteristics of electronic commerce, as raised by all the interested parties who have been expressing their views since the public hearings organised by the Commission on ‘electronic commerce: jurisdiction and applicable law’ in November 1999.
Being fully aware of most of the questions at stake and of the solutions which should be brought to them, the Commission is taking the view that the appropriate way forward at this point is to proceed to present directly a proposal for a Regulation.
The proposal should indeed not affect the existing Community acquis.
The Commission will seek the views of the interested parties on the text to be drafted before its adoption as a formal proposal in the second semester 2001.
(2001/C 340 E/256) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1362/01 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Council (27 April 2001)
Subject: Human rights situation in Nigeria
Some states in northern Nigeria have adopted Islamic religious law (the Sharia). This has led to serious unrest and violence in which thousands of civilians died last year. There is a real possibility of civil war C 340 E/222 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
and of unrest spreading to the whole continent. Nigeria’s political leaders do not seem aware of the seriousness of the country’s political situation when they try to entice international investments into the country. It seems that at present the EU is the only actor on the international scene strong enough to force Nigeria’s political leaders to tackle this problem decisively, and seek a solution.
What does the EU intend to do to remedy the serious situation in Nigeria? Does the EU intend to take the situation in Nigeria in account in its policies on business investments and trade?
Reply
(20 July 2001)
The European Union maintains a close and regular political dialogue with Nigeria, with a view to strengthen the existing process in the country towards a consolidation of democracy and the respect for human rights. The EU thereby endeavours to follow a constructive approach, welcoming the achievements of the Nigerian authorities to date, while encouraging them to make progress in areas where they still face considerable challenges. Notwithstanding this positive and constructive approach towards Nigeria, the Council has publicly stated its position in cases of human rights violations, whenever appropriate. For instance, on 30 January 2001 the Presidency issued a declaration on behalf of the European Union on corporal punishment in Zamfara State, Nigeria.
With regard to investment and trade, the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the EU Common Position on Nigeria, adopted by the Council on 14 May 2001. In this Common Position, the EU sets out its overall policy on Nigeria, including on the link between the consolidation of democracy and the socio- economic development of the country.
(2001/C 340 E/257) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1363/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(7 May 2001)
Subject: The ‘beer tie’
Following the recent opinion of the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice in the case of Crehan v. Courage (C-453/99), what is the Commission’s current view of the ‘beer tie’ whereby pub tenants are obliged to buy their beer from a supplier nominated by the company owning the pub?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2001)
The Commission’s current policy on beer ties is set out in the new general Block Exemption Regulation on Vertical Agreements (1), together with the associated Guidelines on Vertical Restraints (2). The new Block Exemption applies to contracts signed since 1 June 2000. In brief, it states that suppliers whose market share does not exceed 30 % may impose a non-compete obligation (‘tie’) on their buyer for as long as the buyer occupies the supplier’s premises. Where the buyer does not occupy the supplier’s premises, the maximum duration for ties is five years.
The Commission or national competition authorities may withdraw the benefit of the Block Exemption where particular agreements have effects which are incompatible with the conditions of Article 81(3) (ex- Article 85) of the EC Treaty, for example where markets are foreclosed by parallel networks of tying agreements. The Commission may also disapply the Block Exemption in relation to an entire sector where parallel networks cover more than 50 % of the relevant market. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/223
The Block Exemption does not apply to suppliers with more than 30 % market share. Their ties are assessed in accordance with the detailed guidance provided by the Guidelines on Vertical Restraints. The Commission encourages suppliers to make their own assessment using these Guidelines. Relevant factors are the supplier’s market share, its tied market share, the duration of the tie, the market power of competing suppliers, the existence of entry barriers and the total share of the market which is tied.
Where an assessment under the Guidelines leads to the conclusion that a supplier’s ties are likely to produce appreciable anti-competitive effects (whether alone or together with similar ties operated by other suppliers), the Guidelines go on to describe the types of efficiencies which may justify an individual exemption under Article 81(3). The Guidelines stress that exemption is not available to dominant undertakings.
In general terms, the new Block Exemption and Guidelines adopt an economic approach. They recognise that tying agreements, like other forms of vertical restrictions, can have positive effects and that competition concerns generally only arise where the supplier has some degree of market power or where access to markets is made difficult by networks of similar agreements.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ L 336, 29.12.1999). (2) Commission Notice (OJ C 291, 13.10.2000).
(2001/C 340 E/258) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1382/01 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission
(26 April 2001)
Subject: Consolidation procedure in ‘Tröpolach’
A land consolidation procedure has been initiated in Tröpolach (Corinthia). Two-thirds of the landowners were in agreement with this procedure. Mr Wastl, who owns one of the properties affected by the consolidation, has not agreed to it. However, on the basis of the two-thirds majority, the holdings are now being amalgamated.
Is this procedure compatible with EU law?
If so, on the basis of which provisions?
If not, what legal action can be taken to oppose it?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 2001)
The Commission is of the view that the manner in which a unification of parcels is to be carried out is a matter governed by national law provisions and it is incumbent to the appropriate domestic courts or administrative bodies to handle any disputes related thereto. C 340 E/224 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/259) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1383/01 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission
(26 April 2001)
Subject: Development aid in the form of State aid
In some cases, an EU Member State provides aid to a developing country in the form of a grant towards an investment order which the developing country wishes to place.
If a Member State awards a grant as a contribution to an investment order to a business established in that Member State which then carries out the order for the developing country, should this be regarded as State aid?
If so, is this a form of State aid which is compatible with the Treaty?
Do European rules on tendering apply to such awards?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(18 June 2001)
The question raised relates to a category which is generally referred to as ‘tied aid’. It would appear that this category in fact contains a very large range of types of practices, which are operated by the different Member States. Although it cannot be excluded that some of these practices may in fact constitute State aid, it is however not possible, without an indication of the specific facts of a case, to establish which of these practices could constitute State aid within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the EC Treaty. Equally, it is not possible to establish whether, without prejudice to the qualification of these practices as State aid, they could be declared compatible with the common market.
Attention is also drawn to the fact that questions of ‘tied aid’ to which reference is made may equally raise aspects of internal market, and more specifically of public procurement. On this basis the Commission is currently examining a number of complaints which have been lodged in this field.
(2001/C 340 E/260) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1410/01 by Rosemarie Müller (PSE) to the Commission
(3 May 2001)
Subject: ‘Natural-style’ bathing ponds
A growing number of artificial, ‘natural-style’ bathing ponds have been created in recent years as an alternative to natural bathing areas and artificial swimming pools. These mostly consist of a bathing pond, with a purification pond some distance away in which the water is purified naturally by means of water plants and shore plants. As operators point out, this means not only that the water quality is easier to monitor than is the case with many natural bodies of water which are contaminated by industrial pollution, but also that there is no need for chlorination as with conventional swimming pools. Apart from the health advantages of not using chlorine, the purification process using plants is also cheaper.
However, there is apparently a great deal of legal uncertainty in this area, which is acting as a brake on investment in bathing ponds. In particular it is not clear whether such natural-style bathing ponds are covered by the current EU bathing water directive (76/160/EEC (1)), and to what extent the Member States are entitled to set higher hygiene standards for bathing ponds than for conventional chlorinated swimming pools. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/225
In the light of the above, I should like to ask the Commission the following question: Are natural-style bathing ponds covered by the current bathing water directive, and if it is not clear whether this is the case, will the Commission specifically include such bathing ponds within the scope of the revised proposal for a bathing water directive shortly to be submitted?
(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2001)
The natural-style bathing ponds described are, as a rule, sealed artificially against groundwater or other waters and so there is no interchange with those waters. To that extent they can be compared with artificial swimming pools and thus, in general, are not covered by the existing bathing water Directive (1).
The rules applying to bathing water quality under Community law are based on Article 175 (former Article 130a) of the EC Treaty. The Member States are thus free to lay down further-reaching or more stringent protective measures at national level that also apply to bathing water quality, if such action is compatible with the Treaty (Article 176 (former Article 130t of the Treaty)).
The Commission will propose as exact a definition as possible of the term ‘bathing waters’ in its forthcoming proposal concerning a new bathing water Directive. This is also one of the aims of the current consultation procedure in accordance with the Commission communication on bathing water policy (2), including the Conference on bathing water quality of 24-26 April 2001. A general inclusion into the Commission proposal of all natural-style bathing ponds, as described in the enquiry, is not foreseeable.
(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8.12.1975 on the quality of bathing water (OJ L 31, 5.2.1976). (2) Commission communication of 21.12.2000: A new policy for bathing water, COM(2000) 860 final.
(2001/C 340 E/261) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1413/01 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(14 May 2001)
Subject: Tax discrimination against the employment of personnel leased from other parts of the Community
Up to now, in Austria, in the case of personnel leasing companies, the municipal taxes payable to local authorities have been calculated on the basis of the wages paid.
As of 1 January 2001, on the basis of Article 20 of Federal accompanying law 2001, BGBL 1, 142/2000, firms which have been supplied with staff by a personnel leasing agency are obliged to pay municipal taxes of 70 % of the placement fee. As additional costs and a profit margin are thereby included in the basis of assessment, the effect is to at least double the amount payable in municipal taxes.
A worker leased by a personnel leasing agency based in another Community country to an Austrian firm to carry out work inside Austria is treated far less favourably when it comes to paying municipal taxes than a worker employed directly by the same Austrian-based company.
Even if the Austrian-based firm in question commissioned another Austrian-based electrical engineering firm, for example, to carry out repairs, a much smaller amount of municipal taxes would have to be paid than if the job was carried out by an electrician provided by a personnel leasing company based in another Community country.
Is this discrimination, and the placing at a competitive disadvantage of personnel leasing companies based in other Community countries, permissible under Community law? C 340 E/226 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(31 May 2001)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0411/01 (1).
That answer is still valid.
(1) See page 22.
(2001/C 340 E/262) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1419/01 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission
(17 May 2001)
Subject: Fighting dogs
Measures have been taken in a number of European countries to combat the spread of breeds of fighting dogs, both because they are dangerous as demonstrated by numerous attacks by dogs and the unlawful use of such breeds by criminals to guard property or hold cruel dog fights for the purposes of betting.
Does the Commission consider it useful to draw up a European legal framework aimed at the strict regulation or, in certain cases, the elimination, of such dog breeds?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(26 June 2001)
In the absence of a harmonised definition of fighting dogs, the Commission takes the view that the issue raised by the Honourable Member falls, in principle, within the remit of the Member States.
At the moment, the Member States have very different positions with regard to fighting dogs.
The Commission does not have a sufficiently sound scientific basis to draw up European legislation in this area. In the light of this, it does not feel able to table any proposals on this issue.
(2001/C 340 E/263) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1430/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(4 May 2001)
Subject: Budgetary regulations applying to OLAF
The establishment plan of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) for 2001 attributes to OLAF a maximum of 53 permanent posts in Category A.
Can the Commission confirm that this limit has not been respected and that OLAF has instead almost 80 permanent A-Grade Officials on its payroll?
If this is the case, does the Commission agree that this is an irregularity and a serious breach of budgetary regulations, and was this approved by the Commission’s Financial Controller? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/227
Is it true that the Director of OLAF indicated this problem to the Commissioner in charge of the Budget and Financial Control as early as October 2000, in connection with the first reading of the budget for 2001 and, if so, what was her reaction, and can the Commission indicate all other areas of the budget where budgetary regulations are violated in the same or similar manner?
Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
(31 May 2001)
The budgetary authority decided an establishment plan in the 2000 budget procedure that foresaw 194 permanent and 30 temporary posts for the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF). The breakdown included 83 permanent and 15 temporary A posts, 60 permanent and 15 temporary B posts.
For the budgetary year 2001, the preliminary draft budget (PDB) of May 2000 proposed 300 posts for OLAF, including 100 permanent and 24 temporary A posts, and 81 permanent and 26 temporary B posts. During the 2001 budget procedure the Budgetary Control Committee of Parliament prepared a draft amendment, which proposed a radical change to the breakdown suggested in the Commission’s proposal, for instance reducing the number of permanent A and B posts by 34, and increasing the temporary posts correspondingly.
The Director of OLAF raised the matter with the member of the Commission responsible for the Budget in September and October 2000. The administrative and budgetary difficulties that such a decision would imply were raised. Having pointed these out to the budgetary authority during the first reading, the member of the Commission responsible for the Budget wrote to the Chairman of the Parliament Budgets Committee on 1 December 2000, after the Council had rejected the amendment in its second reading at the end of November, but before the Parliament’s Budgets Committee had voted its second reading opinion in early December. She drew attention to the implementation problems that this was likely to create for the Commission, if adopted by Parliament.
This was one of several comments on the implementation difficulties posed by certain budgetary amendments, rejected by the Council but that were being reconsidered by Parliament in its second reading.
The budgetary authority voted the amended OLAF establishment plan on 14 December 2000, and this is reflected in the published 2001 budget, which foresees now less permanent A-posts than the budgetary plan 2000 and less permanent posts than permanent officials already working in OLAF. Footnote 14 to the OLAF establishment plan states that 76 permanent posts ‘… would remain in the reserve until, pursuant to paragraphs 20 and 21 of the resolution of 16 May 2000 … a fresh assessment has been made of the suitability of all staff currently working for OLAF and the Commission has accepted the resulting transfer decisions by the Director. The budgetary authority requests an opinion for the OLAF Supervisory Committee prior to a decision on the release of these posts’.
OLAF and the Commission took steps to resolve the problems posed by this new situation.
In close consultation with the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration, certain officials were redeployed; this redeployment exercise is continuing.
The OLAF Supervisory Committee gave its agreement on a revised OLAF establishment plan, by written procedure on 30 March 2001. The Commission approved and published the preliminary draft supplementary and amending budget (PDSAB) 3/2001, which contains this revised establishment plan, designed to assure the fulfilment of the missions entrusted to OLAF. The PDSAB 3/2001 is currently awaiting its first reading in the Council before being submitted to Parliament. Its adoption by the budgetary authority will mark the unblocking of the 76 new posts. C 340 E/228 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
As of 15 May 2001, the number of permanent A posts occupied in OLAF totals 71, including one by a temporary official (Article 2b of the Staff Regulations: conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities). DG Financial Control was informed of the Commission’s PDB 2001 and the PDSAB 3/2001, but Parliament’s bugetary amendments are not subject to the Commission’s financial control scrutiny.
This case raises important issues concerning the executibility of the budget, and is without precedent.
(2001/C 340 E/264) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1431/01 by Bruno Gollnisch (TDI) to the Commission (4 May 2001)
Subject: Time-share holiday swindles
The number of abuses and swindles perpetrated by time-share holiday ‘professionals’ has been growing for several years now.
Hundreds of people have fallen and are still falling prey to these mafiosi of the tourist trade, who sell or resell annual stays in non-existent flats and then disappear into thin air once they have collected the money.
Such behaviour has in some cases seriously damaged the tourist industry’s reputation in several parts of Spain (particularly Tenerife and Denia), in south and south-west France (particularly Canet-Plage) and in French overseas departments (Guadeloupe).
Does the Commission intend to carry out in-depth investigations into what already appears to be a serious problem?
Does it intend to take action against the agencies, companies and even banks that are knowingly involved in such cross-border swindles?
Were it to be established that, owing to the laxity of their public authorities, some States were failing to show the proper diligence in combating such activities, would the Commission consider calling upon them to take action?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (20 June 2001)
The Commission is aware of the swindles and abuses mentioned by the Honourable Member in sales of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis.
Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis (1) protects purchasers in certain clearly specified areas (2). However, it does not cover the kind of practices mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Member States alone can take action against such practices.
The Commission mentioned the problems relating to the application of Directive 94/47/EC in its report dated 4 November 1999 (3). This report sets out a series of points for discussion with a view to extending and reinforcing protection for purchasers. Before entering into a debate on possible changes or amendments to Directive 94/47/EC, the Commission is currently awaiting Parliament’s opinion on the report in question.
(1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994. (2) For example, the vendor is obliged to provide certain pre-contractual information, the purchaser has rights of withdrawal and cancellation, and the vendor is prohibited from asking for advance payments during the withdrawal period. (3) SEC(1999) 1795. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/229
(2001/C 340 E/265) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1433/01
by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(11 May 2001)
Subject: Variations in the conversion of amounts in DEM to Euros
Under the German Verdingungsordung für Bauleistungen (VOB) (Order on the award of building contracts) a contract between a principal and a contractor (tradesman, building firm) is based on unit prices set out in the tender specification. The basis for remuneration is the unit price, which is multiplied by the number of units actually constructed. There may be differences between individual totals in the final calculation. In such cases the question arises of the legal basis to be applied.
For example the following situation arises in a tender:
Title: groundwork
1. Removal and piling up of topsoil 250 000 m2 at DEM 7,97 m2 = DEM 1 992 550,00
2. Levelling the ground 250 000 m2 at DEM 6,64 m2 = DEM 1 660 000,00
3. Spreading gravel 250 000 m2 at DEM 19,04 m2 = DEM 4 760 000,00
Total DEM 8 412 500,00 = € 4 301 242,90
Title: groundwork
1. Removal and piling up of topsoil 250 000 m2 at € 4,07 m2 = € 1 017 500,00
2. Levelling the ground 250 000 m2 at € 3,39 m2 = € 847 500,00
3. Spreading gravel 250 000 m2 at € 9,73 m2 = € 2 432 500,00
Total € 4 297 500,00
Difference € 3 742,90
Is the Commission aware that these differences can arise and which legal basis should apply in such cases? If the parties to the contract have not provided for any contractual solution, which is applicable, calculation by unit prices or a conversion of the overall amount?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2001)
As regards rounding of currency amounts, Community legislation is laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro (1), especially in Articles 4 and 5). These provisions solely establish a minimum standard of accuracy as to guarantee a minimum of accuracy in conversion and rounding. The application of potential national rounding provisions or practices as to reach a higher degree of accuracy is not excluded by Community legislation, as far as it doesn’t contravene the above mentioned Community legislation.
The problem of conversion of sums and products of monetary amounts is known to the Commission and dealt with in detail in Euro-Paper No 22 ‘The introduction of the euro and the rounding of currency amounts’ (2) (especially sub 4.1.2.). C 340 E/230 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Accordingly, the appropriate solution for these problems depends on the circumstances of every case, especially on the interpretation of the underlying contract. In this context, it may be important whether the parties have agreed on a ‘lead unit’ or whether the agreement of a ‘lead unit’ can be deducted from the circumstances. It may also be important whether according to the will of the parties several transactions are to be considered as individual contracts with separate payment obligations or whether each individual position forms only part of an ‘internal’ calculation of the final sum to be paid. In the first case individual amounts are to be converted and rounded while in the latter the finally invoiced amounts will be relevant.
In general, the accuracy of the calculation can be increased by using a greater number of decimals when converting so that no significant differences arise for the contracting parties as a result of the conversion.
(1) OJ L 162, 19.6.1997. (2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy finance/document/europap/eup22de.htm.
(2001/C 340 E/266) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1444/01 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(11 May 2001)
Subject: Management of the European Social Fund in the Canary Islands
The answer of 13 October 2000 (1) to Written Question E-2331/00 on the same subject sparked off a lively political debate widely reported across the regional press in the Canary Islands.
The debate prompted Mr José Carlos Mauricio, spokesman for the CC (Canary Islands Coalition) grouping in the Spanish parliament, to reveal that ‘last week’ (sic) he had had a discussion with Commissioner Diamantopoulou, in the course of which she had informed him, ‘unofficially’, of the existence of a Commission report on the management of ‘Community employment funds’ (as they are referred to in the text), ‘clearing the Canary Islands government of any wrongdoing and revealing that the only irregularities discovered by Brussels were administrative errors’, which were ‘very common in those Member States with high levels of unemployment (Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece)’. According to Mr Mauricio, Commissioner Diamantopoulou told him that the irregularities concerned were ‘administrative errors resulting from precipitate use of the funds’.
Will Commissioner Diamantopoulou, on the Commission’s behalf, give details of or confirm the existence of any recent report, study or document drawn up by the Commission in connection with the management of programmes and/or projects financed by the European Social Fund in the Canary Islands?
Is it the case, as reported in the press, that Commissioner Diamantopoulou expressed the view that in countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece errors of an administrative or other nature are commonplace in the management of resources from the European Social Fund?
(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 120.
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(18 June 2001)
The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that no report or study has recently been carried out on the management of programmes and/or projects funded by the European Social Fund (ESF) in the Canary Islands. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/231
In addition, the Commission can confirm that the Member of the Commission responsible for Employment and Social Affairs has made no statements concerning the Canary Islands. She has, however, on several occasions referred to the existence of irregularities or presumed irregularities in the various Member States.
(2001/C 340 E/267) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1446/01 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 May 2001)
Subject: Non-application of Article 4(3) of Directive 90/220
Can the Commission confirm that the relevant tests for carrying out checks to detect all genetically modified plant varieties which are currently authorised or on the market in non-Member States are available to the Commission and all the Member States? (Please answer yes or no).
Can the conclusion be drawn from the Commission’s answer of 26 March 2001 to Question P-0197/01 (1) of 29 January 2001 that the Commission as yet has no information concerning the extent to which spot checks are carried out in which Member States?
Can the conclusion be drawn from answer No 4 to the same question that neither the Commission nor the Member States are currently in a position to carry out checks to detect a possibly unauthorised deliberate release of genetically modified organisms for the purpose of placing products on the market?
(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 153.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(22 June 2001)
The modification of plant varieties by gene technology which are currently approved in non-Member States is based on a limited number of traits and accompanying regulatory sequences. These sequences are commonly used and known in the scientific community. Based on this knowledge it is possible to detect whether a product has been genetically modified or not, in a first step.
If this is the case, the genetic modification has to be identified in order to verify if it is an authorised genetically modified organism (GMO). In order to do this, Member States can use the information on inserted sequences contained in the notification dossiers when there has been an application for marketing in the Community, irrespective of the fact that the product is authorized or the application is still pending. If tests with such sequences specific to a particular genetic modification give a positive answer, one can conclude that an authorised or pending GMO is present. Should these tests give a negative answer, such a GMO would be classified as not approved or pending in the Community. If further sequence information on such a non-approved GMO is seen to be necessary, this information has to be collected from other reliable sources.
The implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (not GMOs only for Living Modified Organisms (LMOs), not for example soyameal) will i.e. provide for a further mechanism for the exchange of such information. Furthermore the CODEX Ad Hoc Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology aims at establishing a register or depository containing relevant information on methods for detection and identification of GMOs or foods derived from GMOs and a Working Group under the chairmanship of Germany has been established to this end.
The transfer of information on inspection and control measures is assured by a regular exchange with Member States i.e. on the occasion of the Competent Authorities meetings, which are chaired by the Commission. C 340 E/232 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
In addition, the Commission has funded a project on the ‘Enforcement on the Deliberate Release of GMOs’ with the aim of having a common approach on the inspection and control activities in Member States and increasing the direct contact of the inspection services.
The Joint Research Centre of the Commission is co-ordinating a network of GMO laboratories of Member States with the aim to exchange information on methods for sampling and detection of GMOs and the results of controls undertaken in the different Member States.
The detection of low level presence of non-approved varieties last and this year shows that controls in Member States are being carried out and have been able to detect traces of approved as well as unapproved varieties in seed lots of conventional varieties of cotton, oilseed rape and maize.
(2001/C 340 E/268) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1492/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(18 May 2001)
Subject: Phthalates in toys
Does the Commission have any evidence that children’s toys made of, or containing plastics softened with phthalates are being imported into the European Union?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(29 June 2001)
Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the Safety of Toys (1) applies to all toys to be placed on the Community market, without any restriction concerning the origin of the products. Therefore, it is the responsibility of market surveillance authorities from Member States to check that all toys (imported or not) comply with the legislation. This also applies to the Commission Decision 1999/815/EC of 7 December 1999 adopting measures prohibiting the placing on the market of toys and childcare articles intended to be placed in the mouth by children under three years of age made of soft polyvinyl chloride (PVC) containing one or more of the substances di-iso-nonyl phthalate (DINP), di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), di-iso- decyl phthalate (DIDP), di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP), and butylbenzyl phthalate (BBP) (2) which bans the use of six phthalate esters in soft PVC toys and childcare articles intended to be mouthed by children under the age of three.
Member States must ensure that they are correctly applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 of 8 February 1993, on checks for conformity with the rules on product safety in the case of products imported from third countries (3). The Regulation provides a framework for co-operation between customs officers and product safety officers. Under this Regulation, customs authorities are given powers to suspend the release of goods which create significant concern of a serious and immediate risk to health and safety. The same applies where the required documentation or labelling is missing. Customs authorities must notify market surveillance authorities of their decision to suspend release of a product on these grounds, and surveillance authorities must then be in a position to take appropriate action.
In the framework of the rapid exchange of information among Member States for products that they consider present a serious and immediate risk (RAPEX system), the Commission has received a very small number (3-4) notifications that concern imported products containing phthalates. Given the vast number of imported soft PVC toys, the small number of notifications confirms the general compliance of toys to the provisions of the toy Directive and the Commission Decision. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/233
Apart from the RAPEX notification, Member States have not communicated to the Commission any other information concerning imported toys made of plastics softened with phthalates.
(1) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988. (2) OJ L 315, 9.12.1999. (3) OJ L 40, 17.2.1993.
(2001/C 340 E/269) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1503/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(11 May 2001)
Subject: White paper on chemicals policy
What analysis has the Commission made of the resources available within the European Union to carry out the testing of 30 000 chemicals in the space of ten years, in terms of the availability of the necessary scientific expertise, number of toxicologists and animal testing resources?
What additional provision will have to be made if the target is to be achieved?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(13 June 2001)
The overall extent of the testing cannot be predicted at present and will only become apparent in the course of the evaluation process.
In order to keep testing to the indispensable minimum, the Commission has proposed substance-tailored testing of substances depending on:
the information already available; for existing substances such information is only available to the authorities for substances exceeding a production volume of 1 000 tonnes (1);
the use of the substances and the exposure scenarios;
the properties of the substances discovered through testing;
the chemical structure of the substance.
Out of the 30 000 substances, the Commission proposes animal testing for around 10 000 substances exceeding a production volume of 10 tonnes. Testing of substances produced in volumes between 10-100 tonnes will generally focus on immediate or slightly delayed effects. Such testing only requires limited resources (around € 85 000 per substance). Approximately 4 300 substances above 100 tonnes will have to undergo in-depth testing for long term effects.
Testing obligations will not only affect the Community chemicals industry. Since importers will also be obliged to carry out testing and evaluate the results, resources available world-wide will in fact be utilised to generate the necessary information.
(1) Tonnage thresholds refer to volumes produced per manufacturer (or imported per importer) per annum. C 340 E/234 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
(2001/C 340 E/270) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1528/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(21 May 2001)
Subject: Pilot study by Eurostat
A press release issued by Eurostat refers to a pilot study it carried out on the economic impact of firms under foreign control, which did not include Portugal.
Can the Commission say:
1. Why Portugal was not included in the study?
2. Whether another study is envisaged to include the Community countries which were not covered by the pilot study already carried out?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(5 July 2001)
The press release concerns the second phase of the pilot study on the economic impact of firms under foreign control (FATS Foreign Affiliates Trade Statistics). Participation in such pilot studies is on a voluntary basis. Due to other priorities, the National Statistics Institute (INE) (Portugal) had decided not to participate in the first and the second phase of the pilot study. However, INE (Portugal) will participate in the third phase of the pilot study together with Denmark, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Data on reference year 1999 are expected to be delivered to the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) by the end of 2001. As a result, Portugal will be covered in the statistics on FATS to be released in 2002.
(2001/C 340 E/271) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1529/01 by Alexander Radwan (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(15 May 2001)
Subject: Assistance for areas along the borders with applicant countries
Under Article 87 of the Treaty on European Union, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources which distorts competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall be incompatible with the common market.
However, with the enlargement of the EU eastwards the major regional wage and salary differentials will lead to serious economic adjustment problems in the areas bordering on the applicant countries, affecting in particular the craft sector, small and medium-sized businesses and the self-employed. These problems could be alleviated by means of a special programme of assistance for the border areas in question.
Some time ago, the Commissioner responsible for enlargement indicated that Member States and regions would accordingly be given greater latitude than is currently the case (for example, under the ‘de minimis’ provisions) to provide assistance for border areas.
Have specific proposals, definitions and/or projects been put forward in the Commission and if so, what are they? If not, how does the Commission intend to resolve this problem? When is a decision likely to be made? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/235
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(3 July 2001)
The Commission is elaborating a Communication on the impact of enlargement on regions bordering candidate countries and envisaged Community actions. This Communication, which was called for by the European Councils of Nice of December 2000 and Göteborg of June 2001, and which was supported by the Parliament, will analyse the economic situation of the Community’s border regions. The Commission will, on the basis of this analysis, put forward proposals on how to optimise existing instruments and how to ensure better co-ordination in order to strengthen the economic competitiveness of frontier regions.
The existing regulations, guidelines and frameworks concerning State aid control, notably the Guidelines on national regional aid (1) and the Commission Regulations (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (2) and (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium- sized enterprises (2) already offer a wide range of possibilities to Member States to award aid in order to diminish the impact of the type of problems described by the Honourable Member.
(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998; amended in OJ C 258, 9.9.2000. (2) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.
(2001/C 340 E/272) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1532/01 by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission
(15 May 2001)
Subject: Safety at work
According to Eurostat (on 31 March 2000) between 1994 and 1996 the risks of accidents at work in the EU fell by 7 % (fatal accidents by 13 %), men are three times more likely to have accidents than women and firms with more than 250 employees are safer. In 1998 there were 4,7 million accidents, 5 476 of them fatal. According to these estimates the annual costs in the EU (medical expenses, sick pay and compensation paid for permanent invalidity or death) total nearly € 20 billion, not to mention the social costs of accidents (assistance, rehabilitation and reintegration into employment, where possible, etc.). In Italy alone an average of three people die at work every day (not counting domestic accidents, those not reported because people are working unofficially and road accidents involving people who travel in the course of their work).
The European Agency for Health and Safety at Work is trying to show that the introduction of provisions in these areas may help to improve the working environment and reduce the costs of compulsory insurance which firms are obliged to take out to show that safety pays.
Can the Commission say whether in addition to the EU’s legislative role to offer workers social protection and employers economic protection it might be appropriate to step up its non-legislative role by publishing information material, promoting comparative studies and providing better training for workers and employers?
The European Week for Safety and Health at Work to be held in autumn at the end of an information campaign involving all the Member States, the Commission and Parliament, trade unions and employers’ organisations may be a good start.
Does the Commission not consider that it is wrong to accept different minimum safety levels in different Member States or in firms of different sizes? If one understood exactly what the competences of the EU and of the Member States are, the Community’s objectives would be better defined and the compliance with them required of the Member States could be regulated by periodic inspections and checks to be carried out by the competent authorities. C 340 E/236 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Does it not consider that more space should be given to issues of health and safety at work in the future guidelines for employment on the basis of an analysis of the best practices in the Member States?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(28 June 2001)
The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member’s concern regarding accidents at work in the Community.
Nevertheless, the data for 1998 (1), which are the most recent available, show that the improvement at European level has continued both in terms of the rate of accidents at work involving more than three days’ absence (4 089 accidents per 100 000 employees in 1998, compared with 4 229 in 1996 and 4 539 in 1994) and in terms of the rate of fatal accidents at work (5,0 fatal accidents per 100 000 employees in 1998, compared with 5,3 in 1996 and 6,1 in 1994, including traffic accidents and accidents on all means of transport during work).
These statistical indicators show that the application at European level of Community legislation on safety and health protection of workers at work has had a positive effect in terms of improving working conditions by reducing accident rates. The legislation thus improves the health and safety of workers at work when correctly applied.
The Commission believes that non-legislative measures are essential to the correct and effective application of European legislation on health protection and safety of workers at work. To this end, several non- legislative measures had been provided for in its Community programme concerning safety, hygiene and health at work (1996-2000) (2). These took the form of ‘non-binding guides’, for example to address the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), information, education and training measures, and studies on changes in the working environment, i.e. the emergence of new risks to health and safety, such as stress, musculoskeletal disorders, repetitive work, violence in the workplace, psychosocial problems or new forms of work such as teleworking.
The Commission is aware of this issue and has since 1992 supported several initiatives to boost awareness among the various social partners, at European level and in close cooperation with the Member States, with a view to improving the effectiveness of the measures adopted in this field.
These included:
the European Year of Health and Safety at Work in 1992;
‘PRevent’ actions (3) in SMEs as part of the Safety Actions for Europe (SAFE) Programme in 1997 and 1998, which will continue under the new initiative for SMEs that has been allocated a specific heading in the Community budget and will be managed by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in Bilbao;
several ‘European Weeks’, which the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in Bilbao is now responsible for organising. In 2000 the subject of the European Week was musculoskeletal disorders, and in October 2001 the theme will be the prevention of accidents at work;
several publications have also been promoted by the Commission, such as an internal audit manual for SMEs (4), guidelines on work-related stress (5), recommendations on exposure limits to chemical agents (6), guides on training in risk sectors (7) or the results of research in the ECSC industries (coal and steel) (8), in order to promote greater knowledge and better training among all the social partners.
The Commission feels that it is the task of the Member States to promote and ensure the correct and effective application of national provisions implementing the Community directives. The Commission is also concerned that there may be differences in minimum safety levels across Member States, and it is always prepared to examine situations of this kind, within the limits of the powers conferred on it by the Treaties. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/237
The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member on the need to give issues relating to health and safety at work a greater role in employment policy, and would like to draw her attention to the new guideline 14c) of the guidelines for Member States’ employment policies for the year 2001, which deals with this question.
Finally, the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that a new Community strategy on safety and health at work is being drawn up. This strategy will establish a framework for future action to achieve an ongoing improvement in the quality of work and thus in health and safety conditions for European workers in the workplace.
(1) ESAW data (European Statistics on Accidents at Work) from Eurostat. (2) Communication from the Commission on a Community programme concerning safety, hygiene and health at work (1996-2000), (OJ C 262, 7.10.1995). (3) Awareness actions on safety and health at work in general as well as the promotion and exchange of best practices in SMEs. (4) Internal audit manual for SMEs Luxembourg 1995. (5) Guidance on work-related stress Luxembourg 2000. (6) Occupational exposure limits, recommendations of the Scientific Committee for Occupational Exposure Limits to chemical agents 1994-1997 Luxembourg 1998. (7) Health and safety training in the fisheries sector Luxembourg 1993, Health and safety in the construction sector Luxembourg 1993. (8) Closing conference ECSC Social Research Luxembourg 1999.
(2001/C 340 E/273) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1544/01 by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(14 May 2001)
Subject: EU regulation on unbundled access to the local loop situation in Austria
Regulation (EC) 2887/2000 (1) of 18 December 2000 on unbundled access to the local loop took effect on 2 January 2001, is binding in all its parts and took effect in every EU Member State. The aim of this regulation is to create fair competition in Internet services in local access networks. The designated operator in each country, Telekom Austria in the case of Austria, is required to provide an offer in keeping with this aim.
According to information from Austria, Telekom Austria is not complying with the regulation. Access is still insufficiently unbundled, so that network components or facilities unnecessary for the provision of the service still have to be paid for. Administrative and technical access to the local loop is too time- consuming and complicated. There are not enough collocation possibilities for all those who need them. Tariffs have not yet been adjusted to actual costs. The calculation is insufficiently transparent. Interested parties with little economic clout still have problems in accessing the local loop.
What is the Commission’s source of information on Austria? Can the Commission be sure of receiving an objective assessment of the situation in Austria?
What does the Commission propose to do in order to achieve full implementation of the regulation in Austria?
(1) OJ L 336, 30.12.2000, p. 4.
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(21 June 2001)
According to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on unbundled access to the local loop (1), notified operators shall publish from 31 December 2000, and keep updated, a reference offer for unbundled access to their local loops and related facilities (RUO), which shall at least include the items listed in the Annex. The offer shall be C 340 E/238 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
sufficiently unbundled so that the beneficiary does not have to pay for network elements or facilities which are not necessary for the supply of its services, and shall contain a description of the components of the offer, associated terms and conditions, including charges.
Telekom Austria (TA), notified as having significant market power in the Austrian interconnection market, has submitted to the national regulatory authority (NRA) a RUO of 22 November 2000, which is also available on the NRA’s website (2). For the time being, TA’s RUO, however, does not include shared access to the local loop. Consequently, there is a need for the incumbent to adjust its RUO to correspond to the requirements of the Regulation. The regulatory authority has urged TA to modify its RUO accordingly before 31 May 2001.
In the meantime, access to the local loop’s broadband spectrum for service providers appears to be possible in the following ways: according to a decision of the Telecom Control Commission of 12 March 2001, service providers are entitled to have fully unbundled access to the local loop. The decision also provides for the necessary collocation. Pricing for collocation is based on actual costs. Furthermore, TA and the association of Austrian internet service providers (ISPA) have agreed on a standard wholesale offer by TA to ISPs. TA has also put a standard wholesale offer on its website concerning bitstream access to ADSL services on its local loop. According to the information available to the Commission, no ISP has so far requested shared access from TA or launched a dispute settlement procedure before the national regulatory authority.
The information on the Austrian situation is based on information publicly available on the national regulator’s website, data received directly from the Austrian regulator and information regularly provided by the Austrian delegation in the ONP Committee.
The Commission is following very closely the implementation of the current legal framework in general, and is aware of the complexity of pricing and collocation issues in many Member States. It will continue to monitor the provisions relating to local loop unbundling in the Member States, in close co-operation with the operators and service providers concerned, with a view to encouraging its full application throughout the Community. The responsible Member of the Commission gave an up-date on the implementation of the Regulation on local loop unbundling to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on 12 June 2001.
The Commission draws attention to the fact that a complaint has been filed with regard to the lack of implementation of shared access in Austria which will be dealt with according to the Commission’s internal rules of procedures.
(1) OJ L 336, 30.12.2000. (2) http://www.rtr.at/.
(2001/C 340 E/274) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1547/01 by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(14 May 2001)
Subject: CN-101 (formerly GU-117) road improvement project in the Carrascosa de Henares area
On 8 March 2001 the Commission replied to Question E-3712/00 (1) by Mr Paul Lannoye on the road improvement works between the GU-177 and the district of Jadraque (Guadalajara), confirming that ‘the CN-101 (formerly GU-117) road improvement project received co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the 1994-1999 Castilla-La Mancha operational programme’. However, this project is having a damaging effect on the Natura 2000 ‘Ribera de río Henares’ site (LIC ES424003) and on the groundwater of the river Henares, and has not been sujbect to an environmental impact assessment.
Does the Commission not consider it necessary to demand repayment of the European funding in question? 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/239
What measures will it take to ensure that the law on environmental impact assessment is complied with?
What does it intend to do to ensure that the environmental damage already perpetrated on the ‘Ribera del río Henares’ site (destruction of groundwater and consequent reduction in water supply; deafforestation) is paid for and the original environmental conditions restored?
(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 30.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(20 June 2001)
As indicated in its reply to Written Question E-3712/00 by Mr Lannoye, the Commission contacted the Spanish authorities in the course of its examination of a complaint regarding the said road project.
The Commission asked the Spanish authorities to comment on the application in this particular instance 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 Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), so that it might determine whether the project is likely to have a significant effect on the site in question in respect of the objectives of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3), in which case the procedure laid down in Article 6 thereof must be applied.
The Commission is currently examining the Spanish authorities’ reply. It would clearly be premature, therefore, to express any opinion as to whether Community law has been improperly applied in this particular case.
Should Community law not have been observed, the Commission reserves the right to ask the Spanish authorities to repay the co-financing which was granted.
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. (3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2001/C 340 E/275) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1567/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission
(17 May 2001)
Subject: Corridor VIII
Can the Commission say whether the protocol has been signed by participating countries and the Commission and whether the technical study has been launched on the status of infrastructure and on priority requirements? What type of financial assistance, and how much, has the project already received from all participants?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(20 June 2001)
The Commission strongly supports the development of all of the pan-European transport corridors by negotiating with the associated parties and taking all of the political, technical and financial initiatives needed in order to promote a background that is more favourable to transport activities on the European scene. C 340 E/240 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
In this connection the Commission, together with the Italian chairmanship of Corridor No VIII the Italian Minister for Transport and Navigation has actively participated, during the previous months in the activities enabling the memorandum of understanding of that Corridor to be finalised. Those activities have aimed, particularly, at helping the countries involved namely Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYRM), Bulgaria, Greece, Italy and Turkey to reach a final compromise on the wording of the MoU.
A agreement on virtually all of the wording was reached in Rome in early July 2000. Some differences still remain and a memorandum of understanding has still not been signed despite the Commission’s urging the countries concerned to do so.
In view of the absence of a memorandum of understanding it has not been possible so far to launch any specific study for Corridor III.
Hitherto each country, acting at national level, has implemented projects on Corridor VIII, which are funded from various sources. However, those projects do not currently form part of any joint effort that is coordinated by an MoU.
When the MoU has been signed and the technical study launched it will be possible to have an overall, detailed knowledge of the situation as regards the Corridor VIII projects, including the nature and amounts involved in the financial support.
(2001/C 340 E/276) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1583/01 by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 June 2001)
Subject: EU-wide invitation to tender for church organs
Danish organ manufacturers are in difficult economic circumstances, one reason for this being that they are not competing on a level playing field. The Danish national church is inviting tenders for church organs from throughout the EU, while the churches in Sweden and Germany, for instance, will not be doing so.
The Danish national church buys organs by means of small contributions from members of the church via a special church tax which is set in line with the church’s financial requirements in the relevant deanery. The local tax administration is responsible for collecting the church tax which is divided between the individual parishes. The locally elected parish council in practice decides and administers the purchase of the organs within the constraints set by the authorities, e.g. having regard to historical values. In principle, the same process applies in Germany and Sweden, where a church tax is levied and administered by the public tax authorities, the funds being distributed to the individual parishes, which are responsible for purchasing organs.
This practice of inviting tenders throughout the EU often prevents Danish organ manufacturers from bidding for contracts in Sweden and Germany, while they are exposed to competition on the domestic market from foreign producers who may have a home market with no free competition.
In the Commission’s view, is this situation in keeping with the philosophy underlying the development of the internal market in the EU?
Can the Commission explain why this discrimination occurs? Will the Commission take steps to ensure that competition takes place on equal terms in this sector?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(18 July 2001)
Whether contracts for the purchase of organs, the value of which is above the threshold, are subject to Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/241
contracts (1) (hereafter ‘the Directive’) depends on whether these contracts are awarded by a ‘contracting authority’, most often in the form of a ‘body governed by public law’ within the meaning of the Directive.
Such bodies are defined as any body:
established for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character, and
having legal personality, and
financed, for the most part, by the Member State, or regional or local authorities, or other bodies governed by public law, or subject to management supervision by those bodies, or having an administrative, managerial or supervisory board, more than half of whose members are appointed by the Member State, regional or local authorities or by other bodies governed by public law;
Given the legal and financial situation of the Danish Church (Folkekirken), it is clear that it meets the conditions for being a contracting authority.
As can be seen from the definition, public financing is not necessarily sufficient to bring the receiving entity within the scope of the Directive; it is necessary to verify that this public financing constitutes the ‘most part’, cf. the judgment of 3 October 2000 in Case C-380/98, ‘Cambridge’. If that condition is not met, it would still be necessary to verify whether the two other alternative conditions of the definition’s third indent are met.
As regards Germany, the Commission does not have sufficient information to assess whether churches in Germany are subject to the Directive. This information will be sought and evaluated as soon as possible.
As regards Sweden, it should be noted that the relations between the Swedish State and the Swedish Church have been changed and that, as a result thereof, the Swedish law on public procurement has recently been changed to provide that churches are contracting authorities only in respect of purchases related to their role as burial authorities. This legislative change is being evaluated.
The Commission will keep the Honourable Member informed of the results of these actions.
However, an analysis, based on a search in the relevant database, of tender notices specifically mentioning the supply (or construction) of organs, whether published by churches or other bodies, shows that a total of 24 tender notices was published over the period 1995-2000: ten from Finland, four from Denmark, three from France, two each from Austria and Sweden and one each from Germany, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Of these 24 notices, nine were published in 2000 (four from Finland, three from Denmark and one each from France and the United Kingdom). In addition there may have been other award procedures involving organs, which were not found because the supply of organs was part of, for instance, an integrated contract for the construction or refurbishment of a church.
(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
(2001/C 340 E/277) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1593/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(21 May 2001)
Subject: Funding for car-parks in Athens under the second and third CSF
What operations under the second Community Support Framework related to the construction of carparks in Athens, what was actually achieved by comparison with the original forecasts, what sums were antincipated and what actually spent? What plans for the construction of carparks in Athens are covered by the third CSF? C 340 E/242 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(21 June 2001)
No carpark construction in Athens has been part-financed under the Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece over the 1994-1999 programming period.
As regards the CSF for the current period (2000-2006), the Greek authorities responsible for the Operational Programme (OP) for Attica have not yet determined the measures and selection criteria for projects to be part-financed under the latter.
(2001/C 340 E/278) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1665/01 by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(1 June 2001)
Subject: Transport of works of art
The transport of works of art is connected with the organisation of public exhibitions and events, and is therefore subject to public procurement procedures. The Commission is working to end discriminatory practices that prevent firms from competing for contracts in other Member States. German museums, for example, have been known to insist that a German firm be responsible for all transport of its works of art, even where a contract procedure and exhibition take place in Spain. It thus occurs that a Spanish firm may win a contract in Spain, but the German museums refuse to have their works of art transported by any firm other than their preferred German firm, thereby refusing to accept the result of a tender procedure organised in Spain.
Is the Commission aware of the effect of the practice of German museums on public contracts in States such as Spain? If not, will it devote particular attention to this question in view of the value of the works transported and with a view to achieving the objectives of the Single Market?
Is it acceptable that a State that respects Community directives on public procurement should have to accept that German museums and the public authorities that run them should oblige Spanish bidders to use a German agent? Is it acceptable that the German firm that is the preferred agent should participate in tender procedures, directly or indirectly?
In view of the need to achieve uniform regulation of the transport of works of art with regard to the requirements that firms providing these services must fulfil, does the Commission see the need to draw up a proposal on this question?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(5 July 2001)
The Commission is unaware of any discriminatory practice by German museums with regard to the transport of works of art.
It will not fail to act on the Honourable Member’s request that the competent authorities be questioned on this matter and that any impact the matter may have on the application of Community law on public procurement and the freedom to supply services be assessed.
As the Honourable Member points out, both the Community directives on public procurement and Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty prohibit direct or indirect discrimination based on nationality. 4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/243
(2001/C 340 E/279) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1689/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(6 June 2001)
Subject: Validity of the tendering procedure for the privatisation of Olympic Airways
Concerning the closing date for the tendering procedure relating to the privatisation of Olympic Airways, for which the closing date was 14 May, the government-appointed consultant has delayed the communication of details regarding the tenders submitted by potential buyers. According to newspaper reports (Eleftherotypia of 19 May 2001 and Kathimerini of 25 May 2001), the tendering arrangements were accompanied by secondary negotiations by which the potential buyers sought to secure certain advantages in exchange for purchasing Olympic Airways, such as contracts to supply the armed forces (with tanks, helicopters and communications equipment) or the purchase under favourable conditions, of portions of the former Helleniko airport.
Will the Commission examine these extremely serious allegations which, if they prove to be true, would constitute an infringement of European Union competition rules?
If this is the case, will it intervene to cancel the tendering procedure and ensure that legal, credible and sustainable solutions to the question of Olympic Airways are found without delay?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(5 July 2001)
The Commission follows closely the developments in the privatisation process. In this context, it has informed the Greek authorities by letter of 26 April 2001 that the tender procedure will have to be examined in the context of the rules of the EC Treaty concerning State aid. Therefore, once a preferred bidder has been identified by the Greek State and a transaction agreed, a notification of the privatisation project should follow without further ado. In accordance with procedural rules on State subsidies, any transaction will have to obtain the Commission’s approval on the basis of a complete notification of the arrangements of the sale, including the purchase price and all issues of transferal of rights and obligations.
The Honourable Member will have already learned that the Greek Government has decided to regard the second bidding phase as not successful and has invited all pre-selected parties to submit legally binding and complete bids by 18 June 2001.
(2001/C 340 E/280) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1763/01 by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(12 June 2001)
Subject: Ill-treatment of conscientious objector
A conscientious objector, Dimitri Meljnitsenko, was recently seriously ill-treated by the Turkmenistan secret service for having refused to swear an obligatory personal oath of allegiance to the President due to his Christian convictions. Following the ill-treatment, Dimitri Meljnitsenko was returned to his unit and there is great uncertainty as to what is to happen with him now.
Is the European Commission aware of this serious violation of human rights? What does the Commission think it could do to bring pressure to bear on the Turkmenistan authorities to prevent a repetition of such events in future? C 340 E/244 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.2001
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(29 June 2001)
The Commission is trying to obtain information about the human rights violation against Dimitri Meljnitsenko, the conscientious objector, through the Member States’ embassies represented in Ashgabat and the Organisation for Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) mission in Turkmenistan.
Dimitri Meljnitsenko’s case is not the only one of its kind. Young Turkmen must complete two years compulsory military service, during which time they must swear an oath of allegiance to the President. Since Turkmen legislation does not recognise conscientious objection, a number of young people, particularly Christians have been arrested for refusing to complete the period of military service and swear the oath.
The Commission raises these issues at each meeting with the Turkmen authorities in order to ensure Turkmenistan keeps its promise to respect human rights and its international commitments. It has also supported the many steps taken by the OSCE regarding the rights of minorities and religious freedom within the framework of the European Union Presidency.
(2001/C 340 E/281) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1770/01 by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(12 June 2001)
Subject: Pure antibiotic powder publication of research results
Given that at present most pharmaceutical companies only make pure antibiotic powder available to researchers on the written undertaking that the researcher will not publish research results without prior authorisation from the company and given the importance of research into the whole field of antibiotic resistance, will the Commission consider drawing up rules of good practice whereby researchers may be able to publish their results after a set period, perhaps 6 to 12 months, without further consultation with the pharmaceutical companies?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(10 July 2001)
The issue of antimicrobial resistance forms an inherent part of the Community’s health strategy and comprises actions in all the relevant sectors, public health, veterinary and phytosanitary. The Commission has adopted on 20 June 2001 a communication setting out a Community strategy against antimicrobial resistance from this multisectoral perspective (1).
With respect to the specific question on access to antibiotic powder for researchers, and having contacted several companies who may be concerned, the Commission understands that it is standard practice for pharmaceutical companies who supply antibiotic powder free of charge to researchers to request undertakings from these researchers that the research is legitimate and appropriate and to request sight of the results in advance of publication. The Commission is not aware that, in practice, publication of the results of such research is restricted. The Commission considers that the manner in which the pharmaceutical industry supplies antibiotic material for academic research is, in general, appropriate, but is not in a position to comment on individual contractual arrangements between a specific company and a specific academic institution. The Commission is willing to address the question of the need for good practice guidelines with the appropriate associations representing the European pharmaceutical industry.
(1) COM(2001) 333 final.