ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C 261 E Volume 44 of the European Communities 18 September 2001
English edition Information and Notices
Notice No Contents Page
I (Information)
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER
(2001/C 261 E/001) E-3042/00 by André Brie to the Commission Subject: Information on the amount of EU subsidies flowing to the German Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in 1999 (Supplementary Answer) ...... 1 (2001/C 261 E/002) E-3301/00 by Eryl McNally to the Commission Subject: Light pollution (Supplementary Answer) ...... 2 (2001/C 261 E/003) E-3637/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Making the standard of ship’s inspections independent of free competition between classification societies 2 (2001/C 261 E/004) E-3646/00 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Biological sewage works on Levkada ...... 3 (2001/C 261 E/005) E-3683/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Amounts allotted under and implementation of the Cohesion Fund (Supplementary Answer) ...... 4 (2001/C 261 E/006) E-3726/00 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted in the UK from unnatural sources ...... 6 (2001/C 261 E/007) E-3777/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the Commission Subject: Scrapie ...... 7 (2001/C 261 E/008) E-3800/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Eco-points system in Austria ...... 8 (2001/C 261 E/009) E-3820/00 by Generoso Andria, Antonio Tajani, Stefano Zappalà, Francesco Fiori, Luigi Cesaro, Francesco Musotto and Guido Viceconte to the Commission Subject: Flooding in Cervinara ...... 9 (2001/C 261 E/010) E-3845/00 by Charles Tannock to the Council Subject: European Rapid Reaction Force ...... 9 (2001/C 261 E/011) E-3903/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Damage to children’s brains caused by neurotoxins used in farming as crop protection products ..... 10 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 261 E/012) E-3905/00 by Dorette Corbey to the Commission Subject: BSE: funding the destruction of animals ...... 12 (2001/C 261 E/013) E-3907/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: Assessment of the 6th summit on climate change ...... 13 (2001/C 261 E/014) E-3920/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: Updating of protected areas on the basis of the EU directive on the conservation of birds: ...... 14 (2001/C 261 E/015) E-3947/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Wine production methods ...... 16 (2001/C 261 E/016) E-3996/00 by Helmuth Markov to the Commission Subject: Different membership fees charged by regional IHKs in Germany ...... 16 (2001/C 261 E/017) E-4008/00 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission Subject: Impact of the German ‘Indusi’ provisional security systems on rail links with the Federal Republic .... 17 (2001/C 261 E/018) E-4010/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Routing of Prague-Dresden motorway via nature reserve and Czech eligibility for joint financing ..... 18 (2001/C 261 E/019) E-4034/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: 133 Committee ...... 20 (2001/C 261 E/020) E-4036/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: 133 Committee (2) ...... 21 (2001/C 261 E/021) E-4037/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: 133 Committee (3) ...... 21 Joint answer to Written Questions E-4034/00, E-4036/00 and E-4037/00 ...... 22 (2001/C 261 E/022) E-4060/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Delay in deregulation of the telecommunications market in Greece ...... 23 (2001/C 261 E/023) E-4102/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: The EIB and the Århus Convention ...... 24 (2001/C 261 E/024) E-4111/00 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the Council Subject: Hunger strike by Turkish prisoners ...... 25 (2001/C 261 E/025) E-4135/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Laying Hens Directive (1999/74/EC) ...... 25 (2001/C 261 E/026) E-4154/00 by Erik Meijer to the Council Subject: Protecting political prisoners in Turkey against hatred, arbitrary treatment and circumstances which may result in death ...... 26 (2001/C 261 E/027) E-0003/01 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Spanish Draft Plan relating to management of water resources ...... 27 (2001/C 261 E/028) E-0033/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: The increased incidence of bromisum containing flame retardants in human beings and foodstuffs comparable with PCBs ...... 29 (2001/C 261 E/029) P-0037/01 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Council Subject: Effects on soldiers’ health of shells tipped with depleted uranium ...... 31 (2001/C 261 E/030) E-0038/01 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission Subject: Effects on soldiers’ health of shells tipped with depleted uranium ...... 32 (2001/C 261 E/031) E-0062/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Incidence of leukaemia and tumours in the European Union ...... 32 (2001/C 261 E/032) E-0063/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Cases of leukaemia and tumours among soldiers involved in the Kosovo war ...... 32 (2001/C 261 E/033) P-0148/01 by Florence Kuntz to the Commission Subject: Consequences of the use of munitions containing depleted uranium ...... 33 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0038/01, E-0062/01, E-0063/01 and P-0148/01 . . 33 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 261 E/034) E-0048/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Aid for Groupement Européen de Recherches Technologiques sur les Hydrocarbures ...... 34 (2001/C 261 E/035) E-0051/01 by Joaquim Miranda to the Commission Subject: Environmental impact of the construction of a road in Arouca (Portugal) ...... 35 (2001/C 261 E/036) E-0073/01 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Nuclear safety ...... 36 (2001/C 261 E/037) E-0080/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Integration of Galicia into the European high-speed rail network over 2000-2006 ...... 37 (2001/C 261 E/038) E-0087/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Fisheries agreements between Morocco and Japan, Russia, Korea and Norway ...... 38 (2001/C 261 E/039) E-0089/01 by Rainer Wieland to the Commission Subject: Reverse discrimination against German participants in frequent flyer programmes ...... 38 (2001/C 261 E/040) E-0101/01 by Brice Hortefeux to the Commission Subject: Changeover to the euro for SMUs and SMIs ...... 39 (2001/C 261 E/041) E-0110/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Air pollution and climate change ...... 40 (2001/C 261 E/042) E-0120/01 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Wood preserving agents ...... 41 (2001/C 261 E/043) E-0128/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Timeliness of economic statistics ...... 42 (2001/C 261 E/044) E-0129/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Financial services ...... 43 (2001/C 261 E/045) E-0132/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Employees ...... 44 (2001/C 261 E/046) E-0140/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Legislative discussions ...... 46 (2001/C 261 E/047) E-0141/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Open debates ...... 46 (2001/C 261 E/048) E-0142/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Secrecy of national legislatures ...... 46 (2001/C 261 E/049) E-0143/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Democratic criteria ...... 46 (2001/C 261 E/050) E-0144/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Council secrecy ...... 46 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0140/01, E-0141/01, E-0142/01, E-0143/01 and E-0144/01 ...... 47 (2001/C 261 E/051) E-0150/01 by Reimer Böge to the Commission Subject: Additional information in the labelling of beef ...... 48 (2001/C 261 E/052) E-0156/01 by Jean-Maurice Dehousse to the Commission Subject: Consequences of the merger trend in the airline company sector ...... 49 (2001/C 261 E/053) E-0157/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Council Subject: European social statute for housewives ...... 50 (2001/C 261 E/054) E-0162/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Blueprint for bodies involved in Community activities of general interest ...... 51 (2001/C 261 E/055) E-0163/01 by Stefano Zappalà, Antonio Tajani, Guido Viceconte, Mario Mauro, Amalia Sartori, Carlo Fatuzzo, Umberto Scapagnini, Renato Brunetta and Guido Podestà to the Commission Subject: Mad cow disease ...... 52 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 261 E/056) E-0164/01 by Jules Maaten to the Commission Subject: Progress reached in introducing the euro in the different Member States in the euro zone ...... 53 (2001/C 261 E/057) E-0168/01 by Jeffrey Titford to the Commission Subject: European Union approval of clean beaches ...... 54 (2001/C 261 E/058) E-0184/01 by Florence Kuntz to the Council Subject: Consequences of the use of munitions containing depleted uranium ...... 56 (2001/C 261 E/059) E-0186/01 by Lousewies van der Laan to the Council Subject: Exchange of information concerning health hazards to military personnel ...... 57 (2001/C 261 E/060) E-0187/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Common foreign policy on Kosovo ...... 58 (2001/C 261 E/061) P-0190/01 by Patricia McKenna to the Commission Subject: European Court judgment against Ireland of 21 September 1999 Case C-392/96 ...... 59 (2001/C 261 E/062) E-0194/01 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Armin Laschet, Mathieu Grosch, Klaus-Heiner Lehne and Karl-Heinz Florenz to the Commission Subject: Restoration of international rail freight transport on the historical route of the Ijzeren Rijn line ...... 60 (2001/C 261 E/063) E-0199/01 by Stavros Xarchakos and Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Monitoring of uranium pollution in the Rivers Strymona and Nestos ...... 61 (2001/C 261 E/064) E-0200/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Contracts to supply natural gas from third countries ...... 62 (2001/C 261 E/065) E-0202/01 by Charles Tannock and Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: VAT rates on the repair of churches ...... 63 (2001/C 261 E/066) E-0217/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Moves by the Greek Telecommunications Organisation (OTE) to hinder the process of the deregulation of the market ...... 64 (2001/C 261 E/067) E-0220/01 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Planning of the Daskalovo-Kulata motorway section through the Kresna gorge nature conservation area in Bulgaria ...... 65 (2001/C 261 E/068) P-0224/01 by Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo to the Council Subject: Economy class syndrome ...... 67 (2001/C 261 E/069) P-0225/01 by Rosemarie Müller to the Commission Subject: Build-up of resistance resulting from excessive use of antibiotics in farming ...... 67 (2001/C 261 E/070) E-0227/01 by Rosemarie Müller to the Commission Subject: Freedom of movement for the disabled ...... 68 (2001/C 261 E/071) E-0236/01 by Erik Meijer to the Council Subject: Continuing failure to clarify deaths of inhabitants of Kosovar village of Racak ...... 69 (2001/C 261 E/072) E-0238/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Exotic animal species: closure of Netherlands borders to imports from outside Europe ...... 70 (2001/C 261 E/073) E-0239/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Exotic animal species: inadvertent increase in transport time and higher death rate ...... 70 (2001/C 261 E/074) E-0240/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Exotic animal species: removing animals unsuitable as domestic pets from the European market ..... 71 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0238/01, E-0239/01 and E-0240/01 ...... 71 (2001/C 261 E/075) P-0245/01 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Babcock Wilson España ...... 73 (2001/C 261 E/076) E-0249/01 by Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo to the Commission Subject: Regulation of alcohol consumption on various forms of transport, particularly aircraft ...... 73 (2001/C 261 E/077) E-0280/01 by Reimer Böge to the Commission Subject: Member States’ plans to carry out food and veterinary checks ...... 74 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 261 E/078) E-0285/01 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Fuel tax in Greece ...... 76 (2001/C 261 E/079) E-0286/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Counterfeiting of euro currency ...... 77 (2001/C 261 E/080) E-0291/01 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Religious think tanks and the EU ...... 78 (2001/C 261 E/081) E-0293/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: Interreg III Community initiative ...... 79 (2001/C 261 E/082) E-0296/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: Implementation of regional policy in the Canary Islands ...... 80 (2001/C 261 E/083) E-0297/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: Inclusion of seaports in the Canary Islands in trans-European transport networks ...... 80 (2001/C 261 E/084) E-0298/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Council Subject: VAT increase in the tourism industry ...... 81 (2001/C 261 E/085) E-0300/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Compliance with the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives during the organisation of the Olympic Games in Greece ...... 81 (2001/C 261 E/086) E-0332/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Measures to protect the Skhinia wetlands ...... 82 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0300/01 and E-0332/01 ...... 82 (2001/C 261 E/087) P-0304/01 by Luciano Caveri to the Commission Subject: Mont Blanc tunnel ...... 83 (2001/C 261 E/088) E-0310/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Construction of small dams and other irrigation projects in Greece ...... 84 (2001/C 261 E/089) E-0311/01 by Luigi Cesaro to the Commission Subject: Emergency caused by waste in Naples ...... 85 (2001/C 261 E/090) E-0315/01 by Daniel Hannan to the Council Subject: Working Party on Education and the Euro ...... 86 (2001/C 261 E/091) E-0316/01 by Andrew Duff to the Commission Subject: The single market ...... 87 (2001/C 261 E/092) E-0319/01 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Commission Subject: Community legislation on the marketing of medicine through the Internet and teleshopping networks .. 88 (2001/C 261 E/093) E-0322/01 by Luigi Cesaro and Generoso Andria to the Commission Subject: Maríne pollution in the bay of Ogliastro Marína ...... 89 (2001/C 261 E/094) E-0328/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Cigarette smuggling ...... 91 (2001/C 261 E/095) E-0329/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: State support for the transfer of Olympic Airways to Spata airport ...... 91 (2001/C 261 E/096) E-0330/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Delays by the Civil Aviation Authority in implementing international standards ...... 92 (2001/C 261 E/097) E-0331/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Competitiveness of Spata airport ...... 93 (2001/C 261 E/098) E-0333/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Shipments of toxic waste ...... 94 (2001/C 261 E/099) P-0356/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: BSE ...... 95 (2001/C 261 E/100) E-0365/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Xerox restructuring aid from the Irish Government ...... 95 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 261 E/101) E-0369/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the Council Subject: Reducing burdens on business ...... 96 (2001/C 261 E/102) E-0374/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Natural products and scientific assessment ...... 97 (2001/C 261 E/103) E-0375/01 by Luciano Caveri to the Commission Subject: Return of canis lupus to Alpine areas ...... 98 (2001/C 261 E/104) E-0377/01 by Luciano Caveri to the Commission Subject: BSE ...... 99 (2001/C 261 E/105) E-0381/01 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: Coal mining in the Ruhr region, North Rhine-Westphalia ...... 100 (2001/C 261 E/106) E-0382/01 by Jeffrey Titford to the Commission Subject: Proposed directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment ...... 101 (2001/C 261 E/107) E-0383/01 by Elizabeth Lynne to the Commission Subject: Milk cooperatives ...... 103 (2001/C 261 E/108) E-0388/01 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Homeworkers ...... 103 (2001/C 261 E/109) E-0391/01 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: FYROM/Greece: ecological damage to Lake Dojran ...... 104 (2001/C 261 E/110) E-0393/01 by Mathieu Grosch to the Commission Subject: Driving licence directive and vision ...... 105 (2001/C 261 E/111) E-0395/01 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Quality control of honey ...... 106 (2001/C 261 E/112) E-0398/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: EU funding to widen the Panama Canal ...... 107 (2001/C 261 E/113) E-0399/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Negotiations with the Spanish Government concerning the opening of proceedings in respect of state aid to Spanish electricity companies ...... 107 (2001/C 261 E/114) E-0400/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Routing of the ‘Atlantic highway’ through Porriño ...... 108 (2001/C 261 E/115) E-0405/01 by Joaquim Miranda to the Commission Subject: Compliance with the Angola-EU fisheries agreement ...... 109 (2001/C 261 E/116) E-0414/01 by Astrid Thors, Karin Riis-Jørgensen and Jan Mulder to the Commission Subject: Fur animals in the Netherlands ...... 110 (2001/C 261 E/117) P-0415/01 by Niels Busk to the Commission Subject: Food safety and the WTO ...... 111 (2001/C 261 E/118) P-0416/01 by Roy Perry to the Council Subject: Electric shock weapons ...... 112 (2001/C 261 E/119) E-0419/01 by Niels Busk to the Commission Subject: Compensation in respect of the new BSE rules ...... 113 (2001/C 261 E/120) E-0423/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Council Subject: United States foreign policy ...... 113 (2001/C 261 E/121) E-0425/01 by Olivier Dupuis to the Council Subject: Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the abduction of Mr Jacques Depelchin by the Ugandan army ...... 114 (2001/C 261 E/122) E-0432/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: EU participation in new Indian Ocean multilateral fisheries organisation ...... 115 (2001/C 261 E/123) E-0437/01 by Martin Callanan to the Commission Subject: The BP Trent tragedy in June 1993 ...... 116 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 261 E/124) E-0441/01 by Michiel van Hulten to the Commission Subject: Recruitment of permanent officials at the European Commission ...... 116 (2001/C 261 E/125) E-0446/01 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: The labelling of animal extracts in medicines ...... 117 (2001/C 261 E/126) E-0447/01 by Arlindo Cunha to the Commission Subject: Tomato aids in 1999/2000 ...... 118 (2001/C 261 E/127) E-0452/01 by Struan Stevenson to the Commission Subject: EU and third-country fisheries agreements ...... 119 (2001/C 261 E/128) E-0453/01 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Longline fishing ...... 120 (2001/C 261 E/129) E-0454/01 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Angling in the European Union ...... 121 (2001/C 261 E/130) E-0468/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Reform of the Commission ...... 122 (2001/C 261 E/131) E-0470/01 by Pere Esteve to the Commission Subject: Construction of a sewage treatment plant in Mallorca ...... 122 (2001/C 261 E/132) P-0479/01 by María Izquierdo Rojo to the Commission Subject: Request for repayment by Spain of ESP 55 000 million (€ 331,1 million) for unduly paid agricultural aid 124 (2001/C 261 E/133) E-0487/01 by Eurig Wyn and Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Minority languages and freedom of expression in Greece ...... 125 (2001/C 261 E/134) E-0492/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: Specific measures for transport for the Ultra-peripheral Regions ...... 125 (2001/C 261 E/135) E-0497/01 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the Commission Subject: Efficient management of the radio spectrum ...... 126 (2001/C 261 E/136) E-0498/01 by Markus Ferber to the Commission Subject: Transalpine transport: Brenner Base Tunnel and transalpine link between Lyon and Turin ...... 127 (2001/C 261 E/137) E-0501/01 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Acoustically reflective gillnets ...... 128 (2001/C 261 E/138) E-0503/01 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: EU-wide ‘scams’ against the consumer ...... 129 (2001/C 261 E/139) E-0506/01 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Accession negotiations with Turkey ...... 130 (2001/C 261 E/140) E-0507/01 by Stephen Hughes to the Commission Subject: Car park of the Commission ...... 130 (2001/C 261 E/141) E-0508/01 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 Council Subject: The role of the Economic and Social Committee and the prioritising of expenditures within the European Union ...... 131 (2001/C 261 E/142) E-0515/01 by Francesco Musotto to the Commission Subject: European computer driving licence ...... 132 (2001/C 261 E/143) E-0517/01 by Stavros Xarchakos and Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Second and third CSFs for Greece: operational programmes for culture ...... 133 (2001/C 261 E/144) E-0519/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Procurement of computers versus environmental criteria ...... 134 (2001/C 261 E/145) E-0520/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Team Europe ...... 135 (2001/C 261 E/146) E-0523/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Council Subject: Sponsorship of Council meetings in Sweden ...... 136 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 261 E/147) E-0525/01 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the Commission Subject: Stability pact in Spain ...... 137 (2001/C 261 E/148) E-0529/01 by Alejandro Agag Longo to the Commission Subject: The economic situation ...... 137 (2001/C 261 E/149) E-0530/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Property rights and enlargement ...... 138 (2001/C 261 E/150) E-0534/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Working languages in the European Patent Office ...... 139 (2001/C 261 E/151) E-0539/01 by Nelly Maes and Gabriele Stauner to the Commission Subject: Unanswered questions in connection with the ECHO affair ...... 139 (2001/C 261 E/152) E-0540/01 by Raimon Obiols i Germà to the Commission Subject: Environmental impact assessment of the plan to route a high-speed rail line through Santa Oliva (Tarragona, Spain) ...... 140 (2001/C 261 E/153) E-0549/01 by Giovanni Pittella and Vincenzo Lavarra to the Commission Subject: Payment of aid to breeders of Podolica cattle ...... 141 (2001/C 261 E/154) P-0553/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for each Directorate-General ...... 143 (2001/C 261 E/155) E-0554/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Budget ...... 143 (2001/C 261 E/156) E-0555/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Competition ...... 143 (2001/C 261 E/157) E-0556/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Development ...... 143 (2001/C 261 E/158) E-0557/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Economic and Monetary Affairs ...... 144 (2001/C 261 E/159) E-0558/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Education and Culture ...... 144 (2001/C 261 E/160) E-0559/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Employment and Social Affairs ...... 144 (2001/C 261 E/161) E-0560/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Enlargement ...... 145 (2001/C 261 E/162) E-0561/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Enterprise and Information Society ...... 145 (2001/C 261 E/163) E-0562/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Environment ...... 145 (2001/C 261 E/164) E-0563/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG External Relations ...... 145 (2001/C 261 E/165) E-0564/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Health and Consumer Protection ...... 146 (2001/C 261 E/166) E-0565/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Insurance for DG Internal Market ...... 146 (2001/C 261 E/167) E-0566/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Justice and Home Affairs ...... 146 (2001/C 261 E/168) E-0567/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Regional Policy ...... 147 (2001/C 261 E/169) E-0568/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Research ...... 147 (2001/C 261 E/170) E-0569/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Trade ...... 147 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 261 E/171) E-0570/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Transport and Energy ...... 147 Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 . . 148 (2001/C 261 E/172) E-0572/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: E-mail problems ...... 148 (2001/C 261 E/173) E-0575/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Radioactive waste ...... 149 (2001/C 261 E/174) E-0579/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Water which is unfit to drink in Andalusia ...... 150 (2001/C 261 E/175) E-0581/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: The Year of Languages and mobility amongst language teachers ...... 151 (2001/C 261 E/176) P-0584/01 by Patricia McKenna to the Commission Subject: Aquaculture developments at Lough Swilly, Co Donegal, an SAC and an SPA, and at Kenmare Bay, Co. Kerry, an SAC ...... 152 (2001/C 261 E/177) P-0587/01 by Elisabeth Schroedter to the Commission Subject: Refusal to let property to foreign nationals in Berlin ...... 153 (2001/C 261 E/178) E-0592/01 by Richard Howitt to the Commission Subject: Applicability of European-approved specification EN1317 for safety barriers ...... 154 (2001/C 261 E/179) E-0593/01 by Richard Howitt to the Commission Subject: Mutual recognition of educational qualifications within the European Union ...... 155 (2001/C 261 E/180) E-0596/01 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: The Primarolo Group ...... 156 (2001/C 261 E/181) E-0598/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Referendum on independence for the Faeroe Isles ...... 157 (2001/C 261 E/182) E-0604/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Council Subject: Community police officers whose nationality is not that of the Member State in which they serve .... 157 (2001/C 261 E/183) E-0606/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: European Union campaign to combat child deaths caused by accidents ...... 158 (2001/C 261 E/184) E-0609/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Greek-Turkish agreement to construct new natural gas pipelines under the Inogate Umbrella Agreement . 159 (2001/C 261 E/185) E-0614/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Football transfer fees ...... 159 (2001/C 261 E/186) E-0619/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Democratic control of European commercial policy ...... 160 (2001/C 261 E/187) E-0620/01 by Nelly Maes to the Commission Subject: Respect for regional and minority languages ...... 161 (2001/C 261 E/188) E-0621/01 by Nelly Maes to the Council Subject: Belgian visas ...... 162 (2001/C 261 E/189) E-0622/01 by Nelly Maes to the Council Subject: Belgian visas ...... 163 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0621/01 and E-0622/01 ...... 164 (2001/C 261 E/190) P-0623/01 by Stavros Xarchakos to the Commission Subject: EU decentralised bodies and combating unemployment ...... 164 (2001/C 261 E/191) E-0626/01 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Hypersensitivity ...... 166 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 261 E/192) E-0628/01 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Harm to wearers of pacemakers from shop security systems ...... 167 (2001/C 261 E/193) E-0632/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Regional Air Traffic Control Centre in Thessaloniki ...... 168 (2001/C 261 E/194) E-0638/01 by Theresa Villiers to the Council Subject: Funding of text books ...... 169 (2001/C 261 E/195) E-0653/01 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the Commission Subject: Socio-economic study of the islands of the EU ...... 169 (2001/C 261 E/196) E-0658/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the Commission Subject: Lisbon European Council and the open method of co-ordination ...... 170 (2001/C 261 E/197) E-0659/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the Commission Subject: Lisbon European Council and innovation ...... 171 (2001/C 261 E/198) E-0670/01 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: German chemical weapons in Turkey ...... 172 (2001/C 261 E/199) P-0673/01 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Final decision on complaint concerning the Thessaloniki underground ...... 173 (2001/C 261 E/200) E-0684/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: The common fisheries policy and illegal fishing: flags of convenience ...... 174 (2001/C 261 E/201) E-0685/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: The common fisheries policy and illegal fishing: flags of convenience ...... 175 (2001/C 261 E/202) E-0686/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: FIFG and reduction of the EU’s fishing effort ...... 176 (2001/C 261 E/203) E-0688/01 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the Commission Subject: Fisheries ...... 179 (2001/C 261 E/204) P-0706/01 by Inger Schörling to the Council Subject: Public procurement ...... 180 (2001/C 261 E/205) P-0707/01 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the Council Subject: Crisis in Montenegro ...... 180 (2001/C 261 E/206) P-0712/01 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: Humanitarian and economic disaster in Mongolia ...... 181 (2001/C 261 E/207) P-0713/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Support for the campaign against AIDS in the form of a stance backing the South African Pharmaceuticals Act ...... 182 (2001/C 261 E/208) E-0718/01 by Enrico Ferri to the Commission Subject: Use of satellite dishes and freedoms on the single market ...... 183 (2001/C 261 E/209) P-0723/01 by Patrick Cox to the Commission Subject: Regulation No 2978/94 relating to segregated ballast tanks (SBT) for tankers ...... 184 (2001/C 261 E/210) P-0726/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: The spread of immigration in Europe ...... 185 (2001/C 261 E/211) P-0727/01 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the Commission Subject: Regional policy ...... 186 (2001/C 261 E/212) P-0731/01 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba to the Commission Subject: Attitude of the Italian National Agency for Civil Aviation (ENAC) towards the Air Sicilia company .... 187 (2001/C 261 E/213) E-0739/01 by Roy Perry to the Commission Subject: Report on the future objectives of education systems ...... 188 (2001/C 261 E/214) P-0751/01 by Marialiese Flemming to the Commission Subject: The Regions ...... 189 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 261 E/215) P-0754/01 by Pasqualina Napoletano to the Commission Subject: Lazio Region’s Leader+ programme ...... 190 (2001/C 261 E/216) P-0755/01 by Albert Maat to the Commission Subject: Financing of a school fruit programme ...... 190 (2001/C 261 E/217) P-0758/01 by Werner Langen to the Commission Subject: EU slaughtering programme to alleviate the beef market ...... 191 (2001/C 261 E/218) P-0760/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Commission inspectors’ investigation of BSE in Greece ...... 192 (2001/C 261 E/219) E-0764/01 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Silk production in the EU ...... 193 (2001/C 261 E/220) E-0777/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Uranium contamination ...... 193 (2001/C 261 E/221) P-0782/01 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Safety in ports ...... 194 (2001/C 261 E/222) P-0785/01 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the Commission Subject: The importation of fish into the EU ...... 195 (2001/C 261 E/223) E-0788/01 by Christoph Konrad to the Commission Subject: Excessive bureaucracy and financial costs when re-registering a motor vehicle in Spain ...... 196 (2001/C 261 E/224) P-0795/01 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the Commission Subject: Greek and Turkish missing persons ...... 197 (2001/C 261 E/225) P-0797/01 by María Rodríguez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Support for producers’ organisations and reform of COM in cotton ...... 198 (2001/C 261 E/226) P-0798/01 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: ‘Biological earmark’ as proof of origin for cattle ...... 199 (2001/C 261 E/227) E-0813/01 by Bernard Poignant to the Commission Subject: Sea bass fishing situation ...... 200 (2001/C 261 E/228) E-0818/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Distortion of competition due to disparities in national and regional BSE measures ...... 200 (2001/C 261 E/229) P-0821/01 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Substandard subsidised tobacco ...... 201 (2001/C 261 E/230) P-0822/01 by Stavros Xarchakos to the Commission Subject: Destruction of cultural treasures in Afghanistan ...... 202 (2001/C 261 E/231) E-0825/01 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Pollution of the Cares and Deva rivers in the Picos de Europa ...... 203 (2001/C 261 E/232) E-0826/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Support for the campaign against AIDS in the form of a stance backing the South African Pharmaceuticals Act ...... 204 (2001/C 261 E/233) E-0832/01 by Stavros Xarchakos to the Commission Subject: Rate of progress with the Greek National Land Registry ...... 205 (2001/C 261 E/234) P-0839/01 by Anders Wijkman to the Commission Subject: Mühlenberger Loch ...... 206 (2001/C 261 E/235) P-0842/01 by José Pomés Ruiz to the Commission Subject: Complaint No 2000/421 SG(2000) A/15164/3 ...... 207 (2001/C 261 E/236) E-0846/01 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: The serving of shark products in Commission restaurants ...... 208 (2001/C 261 E/237) E-0858/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Commission right to withdraw proposals ...... 209 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 261 E/238) E-0859/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Commission’s withdrawal of proposals ...... 209 (2001/C 261 E/239) E-0868/01 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Visits of Taiwanese government officials to the EU ...... 210 (2001/C 261 E/240) P-0874/01 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz to the Commission Subject: Swarovski binoculars ...... 211 (2001/C 261 E/241) P-0875/01 by Hans-Peter Mayer to the Commission Subject: Law governing the award of public contracts ...... 211 (2001/C 261 E/242) E-0887/01 by Nuala Ahern to the Commission Subject: Annual quantities of depleted uranium imported into and exported from EU Member States ...... 212 (2001/C 261 E/243) P-0897/01 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: CAP net transfers ...... 213 (2001/C 261 E/244) E-0898/01 by Renato Brunetta, Francesco Fiori, Vitaliano Gemelli, Raffaele Lombardo, Cristiana Muscardini, Francesco Speroni and Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: Divergences between estimates and final figures in Italian macroeconomic data: impact on the Commission’s assessments ...... 214 (2001/C 261 E/245) P-0899/01 by Pat Gallagher to the Commission Subject: Long-line fishing ...... 216 (2001/C 261 E/246) E-0913/01 by Dominique Vlasto to the Commission Subject: VAT on restaurants ...... 217 (2001/C 261 E/247) E-0920/01 by Luciano Caveri to the Commission Subject: Reply to Parliamentary Question to the Commission No E-3400/00 on whether or not French is an official language in Valle d’Aosta ...... 218 (2001/C 261 E/248) E-0926/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Responsibility for the appointment of R. Berthelot ...... 218 (2001/C 261 E/249) E-0939/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: The Swedish exemption concerning the cadmium content of phosphate fertilisers ...... 219 (2001/C 261 E/250) P-0962/01 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the Commission Subject: Presence of SRM in meat from Dutch slaughterhouses ...... 220 (2001/C 261 E/251) P-0973/01 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Driving and diabetes ...... 221 (2001/C 261 E/252) E-0998/01 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: 1999 discharge agriculture ...... 221 (2001/C 261 E/253) E-1018/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Short-term unemployment rates ...... 222 (2001/C 261 E/254) P-1037/01 by Giorgos Katiforis to the Commission Subject: Use of depleted uranium munitions in Yugoslavia ...... 223 (2001/C 261 E/255) E-1050/01 by Carlos Lage to the Commission Subject: Consolidated texts of directives ...... 224 (2001/C 261 E/256) E-1058/01 by Caroline Jackson to the Commission Subject: Town-twinning grants ...... 225 (2001/C 261 E/257) P-1089/01 by Pier Casini to the Commission Subject: Road works to improve the junction between the Via Emilia and the SS (state highway) Selice Montanara and link the Via Borghi to the Via Marzabotto, in the commune of Imola ...... 225 (2001/C 261 E/258) P-1108/01 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: EU-US ‘safe harbour’ agreement on data protection ...... 227 (2001/C 261 E/259) E-1111/01 by Brian Crowley to the Commission Subject: Dublin Office of the Bureau for Lesser Used Languages ...... 227 (2001/C 261 E/260) E-1134/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Capital flows between eurozone countries ...... 228 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 261 E/261) P-1158/01 by Amalia Sartori to the Commission Subject: The Commission’s assessment of the IPI contract ...... 229 (2001/C 261 E/262) P-1159/01 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Use of preservatives and additives in the production of cheeses of protected designation of origin ..... 230 (2001/C 261 E/263) P-1197/01 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the Commission Subject: Failure of the EU/Morocco fisheries agreement negotiations: extraordinary aid for fleet conversion .... 230 (2001/C 261 E/264) E-1206/01 by Francesco Turchi to the Commission Subject: Models of privatisation and the case of Alenia Marconi Systems ...... 232 (2001/C 261 E/265) E-1227/01 by António Campos and Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Wine fraud in Portugal ...... 232 (2001/C 261 E/266) P-1250/01 by Regina Bastos to the Commission Subject: Simplified procedure for the construction of the new bridge at Entre-os-Rios, Portugal ...... 233 (2001/C 261 E/267) E-1278/01 by António Seguro to the Commission Subject: Prepayment at filling stations ...... 234 (2001/C 261 E/268) P-1301/01 by Nuala Ahern to the Commission Subject: Plans to support the Russian plutonium management and disposition and MOX plutonium fuel programmes ...... 234 (2001/C 261 E/269) E-1357/01 by Rolf Linkohr to the Commission Subject: Evangelical radio station in Athens ...... 235 (2001/C 261 E/270) P-1546/01 by Peter Sichrovsky to the Commission Subject: ‘About’ law in France ...... 235 (2001/C 261 E/271) P-1594/01 by Luckas Vander Taelen to the Commission Subject: Gare du Luxembourg, Brussels, and the free movement of services ...... 236
EN 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/1
I
(Information)
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER
(2001/C 261 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3042/00 by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (28 September 2000)
Subject: Information on the amount of EU subsidies flowing to the German Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in 1999
What level of appropriations, through which projects and funds, flowed to Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in 1999 from: 1. the European Regional Development Fund, 2. the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee and Guidance Sections, 3. the European Social Fund, 4. the Community’s research programmes, 5. the Community’s programmes in the field of energy, 6. the Community’s programmes in the field of the environment, 7. the Community’s programmes in the field of transport, 8. the Community’s programmes in the field of education and youth, 9. the Community’s programmes in the field of health, 10. the Community’s programmes in the field of social security, 11. NGO programmes, 12. cultural programmes, 13. programmes in the context of cooperation with third countries (CEECs, CIS), 14. town twinning programmes, 15. other Community programmes?
What is the Commission’s assessment of the success of these measures?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (20 June 2001)
Further to its answer of 06/10/2000 (1), the Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001. C 261 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3301/00 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission
(25 October 2000)
Subject: Light pollution
‘Light pollution’ is caused by stray light that escapes from residential and industrial developments, prevents city dwellers from seeing the night sky and increases global warming. The use of lower powered bulbs and shields to prevent this light from escaping would reduce CO2 emissions and give a better view of the stars. Is the Commission planning to take any legislative measures to prevent light pollution?
Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(26 March 2001)
The Commission has no plans at this time to take any legislative measures regarding light pollution.
(2001/C 261 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3637/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(22 November 2000)
Subject: Making the standard of ship’s inspections independent of free competition between classification societies
1. Can the Commission confirm that, together with the ‘Erika’ which was lost early this year, the tanker ‘Ievoli Sun’ which was lost off Alderney and Cap de la Hague on 30 October had satisfied the inspection requirements for seaworthiness and safety laid down by one of the recognised private firms operating internationally, the Italian classification society Rina?
2. Which Member States have opposed the Commission’s proposed measures for tightening up inspections of ships and preventing fresh disasters?
3. Does the Commission share my fear that the competitive struggle which classification societies are obliged to engage in, in order to acquire or retain shipping companies as customers, always mean that they will be tempted to adopt a flexible approach towards shortcomings and, as a result, ships are given provisional clearance pending repairs to be carried out at a later date?
4. Does the Commission intend to draw up supplementary measures to ensure that the standard of ship’s inspection can no longer be influenced by the fact that it is dependent on competition between classification societies, but is based on the most stringent standards possible?
5. Is the Commission prepared to propose placing such inspections in the hands of bodies operating under the responsibility of the European Union or national authorities, so that ships which are not approved by such bodies can be denied access to European ports?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(5 February 2001)
It is regrettable that another tanker vessel has been lost in severe weather off the French coast. There are, however, considerable differences between the two accidents: the ERIKA broke in two because of structural failure, the Ievoli Sun’s hull structure appears to have remained intact. The Commission is carefully following the investigations carried out by the Flag State, Italy, and the French authorities into the possible causes of the latest accident. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/3
In reply to the Honourable Member’s questions the following information can be given:
1. According to the information available to the Commision, RINA issued the relevant safety certificates, on behalf of the Italian State, necessary to fulfil the requirements for seaworthiness as laid down by International conventions.
2. Following the recent Transport Council there is broad consensus among the Member States on the proposal (1) to amend Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (2).
3. and 4. The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member and has introduced proposals to strengthen the existing Directive in respect of surveillance and monitoring of safety and pollution prevention performance of recognised organisations. A good performance record becomes an unconditional criterion in order to receive and/or maintain recognition under the Directive. Furthermore, should the performance of a recognised organisation start to deteriorate, amendments have been introduce to give the Commission the power to warn, suspend for one year, or withdraw recognition. The Commission also suggests introducing the ‘Transfer of Class rules’ in the proposal for amending Council Directive 94/57/EC (3) which is aimed at preventing a shipowner from changing classification society for safety reasons. All these proposed amendments have been introduced in order to strengthen the surveillance of recognised organisations and to force them to compete on quality in service to the highest possible standards.
5. Yes. The Commission proposed the creation of a European Maritime Safety Agency, which will be a technical body to, among other tasks, assist the Commission in the surveillance of classification societies. As regards denied access, the Commission agrees with the objective of banning of vessels which are manifestly substandard and has proposed measures for such banning in Article 7(a) in the amended proposal (4) for Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control) (5).
(1) OJ C 212 E, 25.7.2000. (2) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994. (3) OJ L 48, 3.3.1995. (4) COM(2000) 850 final. (5) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995.
(2001/C 261 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3646/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(23 November 2000)
Subject: Biological sewage works on Levkada
There is a sewage works operating in Levkada which is located within a biotope. The effluent is released in the Diaulos area. The communities in the north-east of the island are directly affected and for five years the sea area north-east of the island has suffered irreparable pollution.
In the original studies for the town sewage system, the effluent was to be discharged into the Ionian Sea. Once local leaders became aware of the problem, the Ministry of the Environment, Public Works and Regional Planning and the Ministry of Internal Affairs by joint ministerial decree of 19 December 1995 C 261 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
decided to move the outlet for effluent to the Ionian Sea, with construction to be completed by 21 December 1998. Nothing has yet happened, with the result that Community water quality legislation is being infringed. As the biological sewage plant for Levkada was funded by the Community, will the Commission intervene to correct this error?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(31 January 2001)
By ministerial order of 2 August 1999, the Greek authorities identified the straits of Levkada as a sensitive area under Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (1). Therefore Levkada town, which discharges its waste water into these straits, should have been provided with a collecting system and facilities for the stringent treatment of waste water by 31 December 1998. Such treatment must include secondary treatment, i.e. biological treatment, followed by tertiary treatment to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous pollution in the waste water.
In 1999 the Commission began checking the situation in all the agglomerations in the Community which discharge their waste water into sensitive areas as defined in the Directive. A consolidated report will be published at the beginning of 2001. The information forwarded by the Greek authorities in 1999 and 2000 indicates that almost none of the 40 agglomerations in Greece which discharge their waste water into sensitive areas and should therefore have been provided with appropriate collecting and treatment systems by 31 December 1998 had, by that date, met the requirements of the Directive. In 1999 the processing capacity of Levkada’s waste water treatment plant was still insufficient and the authorities said that major work had to be done to complete it. This tallies with the information provided by the Honourable Member. The work funded by the Community was necessary but additional investment is needed for the plant to meet the requirements of the Directive.
In these circumstances, the Commission intends to initiate infringement proceedings against Greece in respect of all the agglomerations which do not meet the requirements of the Directive, including Levkada, and it will ask Greece to take the necessary measures to ensure that its collecting and treatment systems conform to the provisions thereof.
The authorities concerned have not presented any request for cofinancing of the work on the plant. If they do, it will be examined in accordance with the project assessment and selection procedures laid down in national and Community legislation.
(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
(2001/C 261 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3683/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 November 2000)
Subject: Amounts allotted under and implementation of the Cohesion Fund
Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted to each Member State under the Cohesion Fund 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 Cohesion Fund in 2000 and what has been the out-turn to date in each country? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/5
How does the Commission view out-turn of the Cohesion Fund during the 1994-1999 programming period in each of the recipient Member States?
How does the Commission view out-turn of the Cohesion Fund so far in the year 2000 in each of the recipient Member States?
Does it have any means of rectifying implementation of the Cohesion Fund in recipient Member States that are not implementing it fully or properly?
Could unused appropriations be transferred to Cohesion Fund countries 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 April 2001)
The appropriations allocated to the Member States eligible under the Cohesion Fund in 1993-1999 are shown in the following table. The rate of implementation of commitment appropriations was 100 % and all the appropriations available during that period were implemented. Implementation of commitment appropriations by Member State in 1993-1999 was in line with the allocation by Member State.
(€ million)
Implementation Member State of commitments 1993-1999 Greece 2 998,20 Spain 9 251,00 Ireland 1 495,30 Portugal 3 005,00 Technical assistance 8,40 TOTAL 16 757,90
The appropriations allocated to each Member State eligible under the Cohesion Fund and the extent of implementation for 2000 are shown in the following table.
(€ million)
Allocation Commitments Difference Member State 2000 2000 2000 Greece 1 622,00 1 490,10 131,90 Spain 447,00 206,40 240,60 Ireland 141,00 169,60 − 28,60 Portugal 447,00 377,60 69,40 Technical assistance 2,00 1,70 0,30 TOTAL 2 659,00 2 245,40 413,60
Because of the time required to process the new projects submitted for financing from the Cohesion Fund under Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (1), as amended by Council Regulations (EC) Nos 1264/1999 (2) and 1265/1999, both of 21 June 1999, (2) implementation of Cohesion Fund appropriations in 2000 was inevitably concentrated at the end of the year. Indeed, 49 % of the appropriations were committed in December 2000 and some (€ 413,5 million) could not be committed before the end of the year. The appropriations not implemented will be carried out to 2001 pursuant to Article 7 of the Financial Regulation (3). The Commission authorised Ireland to exceed its allocation in order to avoid the risk of losing appropriations if the projects ready for adoption at the end of 2000 did not permit all the appropriations available at the end of the year to be carried over in accordance with the conditions imposed by Article 7 of the Financial Regulation.
The difference between implementation and the allocation by Member State eligible under the Cohesion Fund will be offset in 2001 against each country’s forecast allocation. C 261 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
It should be noted that Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1164/94, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1264/ 1999, lays down an indicative allocation of the total resources of the Cohesion Fund among the beneficiary Member States for the period 2000-2006. The Commission will do everything possible to respect these allocations, which reflect a political commitment given at the Berlin European Council. It should also be remembered that the commitments for 2000 plus those from 2000 carried over to 2001 exhaust the allocation. Adjustments may be made between the Member States eligible under the Cohesion Fund so that finally these allocations are fully used by the beneficiary countries.
(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994. (2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (3) OJ L 356, 31.12.1977.
(2001/C 261 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3726/00 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission
(30 November 2000)
Subject: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted in the UK from unnatural sources
Road transport is responsible for the largest amount of VOC emitted in the UK from unnatural sources.
The stage I Directive (94/63/EC) (1) has been adopted to control VOC emissions from the storage and distribution of petrol, from terminals to service stations.
As emissions released when a vehicle is refuelled account for even higher levels of VOCs, when will Stage II recovery controls be introduced?
Furthermore, when will a national standard of air quality to include VOCs be adopted?
(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 24.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(1 February 2001)
There are many different sources of emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs). In the United Kingdom in 1998 approximately 20 % of total emissions of NMVOCs came from road vehicle exhausts and a further 7 % from the evaporative losses from road vehicles. In addition, petrol distribution accounted for approximately 6 % of total British NMVOC emissions. This is to be compared to the emissions associated with solvent use (27 %), production processes (15 %), offshore oil & gas production (9 %) and natural sources (9 %).
Regarding air quality standards for NMVOCs the Commission has already brought forward a legislative proposal for benzene in air which is currently being discussed in Parliament and Council. Legislation for the other substances contained in Annex I of the Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996, on ambient air quality assessment and management (1) has already been adopted or will be proposed in the near future.
Parliament and Council Directive 94/63/EC of 20 December 1994 on the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions resulting from the storage of petrol and its distribution from terminals to service stations, (State I), was adopted to limit the emissions of NMVOCs during the storage and distribution of petrol. In addition, there have been several Directives progressively limiting the exhaust emissions of NMVOCs from road vehicles and these are expected to reduce emissions substantially over the next ten years. Furthermore, Directive 98/70/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC (2) established the environmental specifications for petrol including the vapour pressure and this is expected to reduce evaporative emissions during re-fuelling. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/7
The Commission has brought forward a proposal for a directive of the Parliament and of the Council on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (3) as part of the Community’s strategy to combat ground level ozone. This sets emissions ceilings for NMVOCs and nitrogen oxides amongst others. This directive, when adopted, will leave Members States the flexibility to meet their particular emission ceiling in the most cost-effective way subject to there being complementary Community measures where these are appropriate.
The Commission has, therefore, no immediate plans to bring forward a proposal to establish Stage II vapour emission controls on the re-fuelling of petrol cars. However, possible additional measures to reduce emissions of NMVOCs will be kept under review in the context of the continued development of Community policies on air pollution.
(1) OJ L 296, 21.11.1996. (2) OJ L 350, 28.12.1998. (3) OJ C 56 E, 29.2.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3777/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission
(4 December 2000)
Subject: Scrapie
Can the Commission indicate what action it is taking to control scrapie?
What practical measures has the Commission set up to study the transmission of BSE to sheep?
What results are available at present with regard to the risks of transmission of BSE from one sheep to another through blood transfusion and what measures does the Commission intend to take in this respect?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(7 March 2001)
Scrapie belongs to a group of fatal progressive neurodegenerative diseases collectively known as transmis- sible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). Unlike bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which is considered transmissible to man causing variant Creutzfeld Jacob Disease (vCJD) in humans, scrapie has been recognised for centuries in sheep and goats without indications that it could affect humans.
However, the presence of scrapie in the Community is a serious concern to the Commission, as scrapie and BSE in sheep are indistinguishable under field conditions and sheep have been demonstrated to be susceptible to infection with the BSE agent under experimental conditions. While there is currently no evidence that BSE has been transmitted to sheep, other than experimentally, the Commission has chosen to take a precautionary approach. A range of Community measures have been introduced, such as the removal of specified risk materials from sheep, a ban on the feeding of meat-and-bone meal to sheep and active surveillance for the presence of scrapie. It has also co-financed scrapie control programmes for several years in a number of Member States. Furthermore, there are extensive provisions on scrapie surveillance and eradication and for contingency plans in the event that BSE is ever discovered in sheep in the Commission proposal for a regulation on TSEs (1), which recently was agreed in the Council. C 261 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Different aspects of scrapie and BSE in sheep are currently addressed in seven different research projects supported by the Community in the framework of the Commission’s Research Action Plan on TSE. A summary of these projects can be found on the Community web-site (2). Following the request of the Research Council in November 2000, a group of experts has now been established to help co-ordinate TSE research work in Europe. Finally, the Commission is currently evaluating a number of new tests for BSE which include tests that might help distinguish between BSE and scrapie.
The Scientific Steering Committee considered the implications of a scientific publication on the transmis- sion of BSE by blood transfusion in sheep in its opinion of 26/27 October 2000. In that opinion, it was considered that, as regards the safety of ovine blood, existing scientific opinions already anticipated the risks resulting from the possible presence of low levels of TSE infectivity in blood.
(1) OJ C 45, 19.2.1999. (2) http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int.
(2001/C 261 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3800/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(7 December 2000)
Subject: Eco-points system in Austria
There have been repeated complaints that local authorities are not adequately monitoring implementation of the the eco-points regulation applicable in Tyrol and that there are frequent infringements. Yet in fact the Tirol gendarmerie checks lorries for up to 16 hours a day at the Kundl checkpoint alone, so that there have already been 32 810 inspections in the year to October, with prosecutions in the case of 1 046 vehicles (3,18 %).
However, the legal basis is posing major difficulties for these inspections. For instance only the lorry driver, and not the registered owner, can be fined; and tax-evading drivers recorded electronically cannot be penalised after the event, as one of the requirements for charging a fine is that the vehicle concerned actually pulls up.
Should the Commission not consider amending the relevant EU regulation, so that its legal basis permits more efficient inspection procedures?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(8 February 2001)
The Commission is concerned about the number of transit journeys being made through Austria by lorries without ecopoints and is currently considering ways of amending the Community Regulations on the operation of the ecopoint system in such a way as to deter this practice, without disproportionate hindrance to the operation of the single market.
On the question of sanctions against hauliers the Honourable Member should note that this is currently a matter of national law. The Court of Justice has ruled that sanctions imposed by Member States should be effective, dissuasive and proportionate. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/9
(2001/C 261 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3820/00 by Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) and Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(7 December 2000)
Subject: Flooding in Cervinara
There are tragedies that have been completely forgotten, but which were actually as dramatic as those in Soverato and Piedmont. No one now remembers Cervinara, with its five deaths, houses swept away and human negligence. After that tragedy, Rosa Russo Iervolino, the Home Affairs Minister at the time, issued a decree designed to tackle the floods and hydrological problems experienced in Avellino, Benevento, Caserta and Salerno on 14, 15 and 16 December 1999.
Article 5 of the decree stipulated that, after the Campania region and the civil protection department had conducted enquires into the events, a plan for emergency infrastructure measures to reduce risks should be drawn up within 30 days. About a year after this strict deadline, there is not the slightest sign of any measures!
Could Enzo Bianco, Home Affairs Minister, therefore be questioned as to why he has not approved and funded (to the tune of 100 billion lira) the plan duly submitted some time ago by the Campania region?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(25 January 2001)
The Commission deeply regrets the loss of human lives and the damage caused by the recent flooding and landslides in Italy.
The Honourable Member’s question is not, however, within the competence of the Commission. It is a matter to be dealt with exclusively by the Italian authorities.
(2001/C 261 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3845/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council
(7 December 2000)
Subject: European Rapid Reaction Force
Is it correct that an undertaking was given by certain EU Member States that the new European Rapid Reaction Force would be linked to NATO in the form of written commitments, but that this undertaking has now been degraded to a mechanism for ‘examining the question’?
Reply
(30 May 2001)
1. With reference to EU/NATO arrangements, the French Presidency was invited at the Feira European Council on 19 and 20 June 2000 to report to the European Council in Nice, in particular on the implementation of the Feira decisions on the development of the arrangements ensuring consultation and cooperation with NATO in military crisis management on the basis of the work undertaken in the EU- NATO ad hoc working groups. C 261 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
2. According to the French Presidency’s report on the Common European Security and Defence Policy, endorsed at the European Council in Nice, on the basis of the decisions taken by the Feira European Council and in close consultation with NATO, the European Union has, during the French Presidency, continued preparations for establishing a permanent and effective relationship between the two organisa- tions. The documents annexed to the Presidency’s report on the permanent arrangements for EU/NATO consultation and cooperation and the implementation of paragraph 10 of the Washington communiqué constitute the EU’s contribution to work on future arrangements between the two organisations.
3. The final communiqué of the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council, held at NATO headquarters on 14 and 15 December 2000, stated that the members of NATO had noted and welcomed the proposals made by the European Council at Nice for permanent arrangements to ensure full transparency, consultation and cooperation between NATO and the EU.
4. On 22 January 2001 the Council welcomed the positive reaction of the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council of 14 and 15 December 2000 to the EU proposals on the permanent arrangements for EU-NATO consultation and cooperation which were contained in the Presidency report on the European Security and Defence Policy endorsed by the European Council in Nice. Further to the communiqué of the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council regarding the frequency of meetings, the Council confirmed that meetings between the North Atlantic Council and the Political and Security Committee would be held not less than three times, and EU/NATO ministerials not less than once, per EU Presidency. Either organisation could request additional meetings as necessary. The Council noted with satisfaction the identity of views between the EU and NATO.
5. The Presidency informed the Secretary-General of NATO of the Council’s conlusions of 22 January 2001 on EU-NATO relations. On that basis it concluded that the EU and NATO were in agreement on the permanent arrangements for consultation and cooperation.
(2001/C 261 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3903/00
by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 December 2000)
Subject: Damage to children’s brains caused by neurotoxins used in farming as crop protection products
1. Is the Commission aware that crop protection products used in the cultivation of fruit and vegetables are strengthened after they are combined following human consumption and that because of the effect they have on the human nervous system they can harm the development of the brain?
2. Can the Commission confirm that the current rules within the European Union for determining maximum values for the amount of neurotoxins in food are based on the impact of each poison individually, but that insufficient account is taken of the consequences of combining different types of toxins?
3. Can the Commission also confirm that, in contrast to the more stringent American standards, the rules currently in force in the European Union on neurotoxins take no account of the great vulnerability of children? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/11
4. Can the Commission confirm the research findings of the leading Dutch organisations Consumen- tenbond and Stichting Natuur en milieu which show that grapes from Greece and Italy contain on average four or five sorts of toxin including, on average, one neurotoxin, with the result that roughly one third of grapes from those countries would be unsuitable for consumption by children in accordance with American standards, and that the situation regarding French apples is comparable?
5. What is the Commission doing to prevent the sale of fruit and vegetables polluted by neurotoxins and to ensure that the standards within the European Union are as strict as those applied by the United States?
(Source: Consumentengids, vol. 48, no. 12 December 2000)
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(17 April 2001)
The Commission is aware that the consumption of different commodities may lead to the cumulative uptake of residues but considers that the current authorisation system for crop protection products provides for adequate safety margins, particularly when combined with the constant monitoring of actual residue levels in food.
The Commission confirms that the current regulatory system for pesticide residues in food is generally based on the assessment of intakes of individual active substances from all dietary sources. The Commission does not agree with the view of the Honourable Member that insufficient account is taken of the consequences of combining different types of toxins since this is done wherever possible with the available accepted methodologies. Such methodologies are continually under review and the Commission actively encourages their improvement.
The Commission does not agree with the view of the Honourable Member and can ensure him that European standards are no less stringent than American standards. Risk assessment includes both hazard and exposure considerations and the resulting overall level of protection is defined by the conservatism applied when both parameters of this calculation are combined. Although the American hazard assessment may be, at times, more conservative than the European one, this is offset by more conservative European exposure estimates. The special situation of children is fully considered when the Commission sets standards in this area.
Without access to all the underlying data the Commission cannot comment on the publication of the Dutch ‘Consumentenbond stichting Natuur en Milieu’. However, the Commission is aware that experts from the Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sport have evaluated the publication and found its conclusions to be misleading and not supported by the data. The results of national and Community-co- ordinated monitoring programmes for pesticides residues in cereals, fruit and vegetables consistently show that 98 % of the samples taken do not contain residues above the Community standards. In the cases where maximum residue levels (MRLs) are exceeded (similar to the American rate), assessments indicate no threat to health. The Commission and Member States make every effort to bring this number down further.
Community and national monitoring programmes provide information on compliance with MRLs, which is used in enforcing the relevant legislation. In addition, the Commission is developing harmonised guidelines in order to further improve reporting by Member States of infringements of MRLs of pesticides in foodstuffs of plant origin through the Rapid Alert System. This will ensure that action is taken on a more consistent basis, providing all consumers in the Community with the same level of protection. C 261 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3905/00
by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission
(13 December 2000)
Subject: BSE: funding the destruction of animals
The Dutch audit office recently published the findings of research into implementing legislation and rules on the destruction of animal matter. It concluded that as a result of the high charges for the collection of matter with a very high risk fewer carcasses are being offered by producer.
1. Does the Commission feel that the high destruction charges are compatible with the policy aimed at guaranteeing the best possible protection for consumers?
2. Does the Commission feel that differences in charges between Member States are a form of distortion of competition?
3. Does the Commission intend to take action to harmonise the funding of destruction?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(7 March 2001)
1. The Commission attaches a paramount importance to consumer protection. The destruction of high- risk animal material is an essential measure, the costs of which should not be so high as to encourage its evasion.
2. Differences between Member States in the level of charges for certain services may have an impact on the competitive position of producers. In the absence of harmonisation at Community level, and as long as measures taken by a Member State to alleviate the costs of certain services are compatible with Community law, in particular the rules for state aids, such differences in the level of charges are the result of policy choices of Member States taken within their own field of competence.
A recent example of harmonisation at Community level is Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000, adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market (1), as amended, in the context of the ‘purchase for destruction scheme’, provides that, except for the Community co-financing, all costs from the delivery of the animal to the slaughterhouse until its full destruction shall be financed by national authorities.
3. The proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and Council laying down the health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (2) establishes that a report on financial support in Member States for the processing and disposal of animal materials shall be prepared by the Commission. This report shall be accompanied by appropriate proposals.
(1) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000. Regulation last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/2001, OJ L 19, 20.1.2001. (2) COM(2000) 574 final. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/13
(2001/C 261 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3907/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission
(13 December 2000)
Subject: Assessment of the 6th summit on climate change
What is the Commission’s assessment of the 6th summit on climate change held in The Hague (Nether- lands) by comparison with the commitments arising from the Kyoto Protocol, in particular as regards the key role which forests are considered to play in the carbon cycle?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(7 February 2001)
The Commission regrets that it was not possible to reach agreement at the Conference in The Hague. A subsequent meeting between officials of major Parties in Ottawa, in which the Commission participated, clarified the issues but did not bridge the gaps. A further follow-up meeting between the ‘Umbrella Group’ and the Community, planned for the week before Christmas 2000 in Oslo, did not take place, in spite of the Communitys declared willingness to participate. In the view of the negotiation partners, particularly the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan, positions were not close enough for the moment to guarantee a successful meeting.
‘Carbon sinkse’, in particular forests, with their important role in the terrestrial carbon cycle, proved to be one of the most contentious issues in The Hague and subsequent discussions. The Kyoto Protocol allows Parties to complement reduced fossil fuel emissions with carbon removals through afforestation, reforesta- tion since 1990, and through additional human-induced activities in agricultural soils and land-use change and forestry. For the first commitment period, these additional activities may count, provided they have taken place since 1990.
Major industrial countries, particularly the United States, Canada and Japan, encounter great difficulties in fulfilling the reduction commitments from Kyoto as their emissions have actually increased substantially. These Parties now seek to fulfil all or at least major parts of their reduction commitments through the use of sinks.
In the view of the Commission and the Community, tapping pre-1990 forests represents rewards for ‘business-as-usual’, and will in no way mitigate climate change and would do nothing to enhance sustainable forest management. The Forest Strategy for the Community of 16 December 1998 states that ‘the role of forests as carbon sinks can be achieved through enhancement of existing carbon stocks, establishment of new carbon stocks and encouraging the use of biomass and wood based products’.
The Protocol is ambiguous as to whether ‘sinks’ can be part of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). In the Commission’s view, many questions remain to be answered, before sinks in the CDM can contribute in a credible way to climate change mitigation and, as stipulated in the Protocol, to sustainable development.
In spite of these concerns, the Community realises the difficult situation of many Partner countries, seeks entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 at the latest, and thus might consider a limited opening for credits from sinks for the first commitment period. The Community has shown flexibility. Agreement was not reached in The Hague, but this does not mean a failure as the sixth conference of the parties (COP6- bis) will build on experiences and insights gained there. The Community will continue to work together with other Parties, particularly with the developing countries, China, and the candidate countries, in view of reaching an agreement as quickly as possible. C 261 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3920/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 December 2000)
Subject: Updating of protected areas on the basis of the EU directive on the conservation of birds
Lower Saxony is currently updating its protected areas under the EU directive on the conservation of birds. It is widely felt that this is happening despite the justified concerns of the local population and runs counter to the spirit of the directive, which requires economic interests to be taken into account.
Would the Commission state:
1. What is the legal basis for the current updating exercise and are there concrete grounds for it?
2. To what extent should the local population be involved in the process?
3. Is it in keeping with the directive to require valuable and irreplaceable arable land to be converted into pasture, place severe restrictions on its use or designate whole parcels of such land as nature conservation areas?
4. Is it in keeping with the directive for the continued existence of old-established businesses to be placed in jeopardy?
5. To what extent does the Commission check the import and purpose of the measures taken by the Member States?
6. Is the Commission aware that the EU directive is being used as a means of pursuing a policy inimical to the local population on the pretext that it is imposed by Brussels? What does the Commission think of the damage that is being done to Europe’s standing with the public, and what does it intend to do about it?
7. Is it true that the Commission is bringing pressure to bear on the Member States by threatening to withhold certain forms of aid from the region if the legislation is implemented inadequately or not at all? Is any such linkage permissible?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(7 March 2001)
The Commission has been pursuing since 1992 a complaint and later infringement case about a failure to fully implement Article 4 of the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) (the Birds Directive) in Germany due to insufficient designation of ‘Special Protection Areas’ (SPAs) for the bird species covered by articles 4(1) and 4(2) and the failure to transmit sufficient information concerning the designated SPAs as required under Article 4(3) of the Directive. The respective court application was decided in summer 2000 and is currently under preparation. Flevoland only (the Dutch programming document for areas outside Objective 1 is still being negotiated) Sources: single programming documents and operational programmes 2000 2006
Based on limited knowledge in the Commission about the actual situation in Lower Saxony only the following response is possible:
1. The Land ‘Lower-Saxony’ is among the remaining German Länder, which, more than 20 years after the adoption of the Birds Directive, are considered as not having so far designated sufficient SPAs nor as having transmitted the respective information. The Commission has neither received from Lower Saxony nor from Germany information about the scope and the timing of the actual procedure described by the Honourable Member. It is therefore suggested that the Honourable Member asks this question directly to Germany or Lower Saxony. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/15
2. The last sentence also applies to the question of public participation. The Birds Directive itself contains no provision obliging Member States to consult the public on the site selection process.
3. The Birds Directive does not in general prevent agricultural practices in Special Protection Areas, but it obliges Member States to respect the conservation objectives of these sites and to prevent deterioration of these sites.
As regards the change from grassland to arable land, the Commission has only been informed through complaints, that areas in Germany which merit designation under the Birds Directive have been destroyed i.e. by change from grassland to arable land. The Court of Justice has recently stated in its sentence C-96/98 (‘Marais Poitevin’) that in a SPA such detrimental change is illegal.
4. In the difficult negotiations to reach agreement about subsidies for agriculture in the framework of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (‘GATT /Urugay-round’) ‘green box’ measures jointly were accepted by the GATT participants.
The Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999/EC of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (2), allows for Member States to compensate for restrictions arising from Com- munity environmental legislation, such as the Birds Directive. Lower Saxony has used this opportunity in its Rural Development Plan and farmers can thus be compensated for such restrictions. This should guarantee that farms are not endangered.
5. The Commission has indeed checked in detail the purpose and the sufficiency of the Member State measures to comply with Article 4 of the Birds Directive and has recognised the insufficiency of the situation. However, the majority of the Länder appear to have in the meantime undertaken significant efforts to improve the situation.
6. The Commission would regret such statements and would like to remind the Honourable Member that the Commission according to Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty is obliged to ensure that Community legislation (including the nature Directives adopted by the Council) is fully and correctly applied.
7. By letter from the member of the Commission responsible for Agriculture, Member States were indeed informed that they have to submit lists of the Sites designated in the framework of Natura 2000 as soon as possible, and within a given deadline. In addition, Member States were asked to inform the Commission, in their Rural Development Plans, about the provisions undertaken to ensure that measures funded under the plans will not lead to deterioration of any areas designated or to be designated under Natura 2000. The Honourable Member will understand that otherwise the approval of the Rural Development Plans as an important financial instrument to support the rural community and agricultural holdings would not have been possible. Otherwise, the Commission would have been in the situation to approve measures, which might degrade or destroy areas, which should be protected under European environmental legislation. The same holds true for the Structural funds, where such commitments by Member States/Regions of objective 1 areas had to be given based on a similar letter from the members of the Commission responsible for Environment and Regional Policy.
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. C 261 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3947/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(13 December 2000)
Subject: Wine production methods
Will the Commission confirm that in certain wine-producing Member States it is the practice to use products made from dried blood in order to clarify wine?
Will the Commission also confirm that such blood may come from cattle?
Does it believe there is any risk of contamination if such blood were to come from BSE infected herds?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(7 March 2001)
The list of substances which may be used for the clarification of wine is laid down in Annex IV of Council regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (1). As blood is not included in this list, it may not be used for this purpose.
In relation to the general point of the safety of bovine blood with respect to bovine spongiform encephalopathy, the Scientific Steering Committee has considered the point of the safety of ruminant blood with respect to transmissible spongiform encephalopathy risks. While it recommended the avoid- ance of slaughter techniques causing the dispersion of potentially contaminated brain material in the blood stream, such as pithing, it did not recommend the removal of ruminant blood from the human food chain. Pithing has since been prohibited by Commission Decision 2000/418/EC of 29 June 2000 regulating the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Decision 94/474/EC (2).
(1) OJ L 271, 21.10.1999. (2) OJ L 158, 30.6.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3996/00 by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(21 December 2000)
Subject: Different membership fees charged by regional IHKs in Germany
1. Is the Commission aware that the more than 80 Chambers of Industry and Commerce (IHK) in Germany, falling under the umbrella Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHT), require different levels of contribution from their participating undertakings?
2. Is the Commission also aware that these differences amount to as much as 300 %?
3. Does the Commission share the view that competition or cartel regulations are affected?
4. Does the Commission consider that action needs to be taken regarding the huge differences in contributions?
5. In a letter dated 11 April 2000, the ‘Verband innovativer Kfz-Unternehmer und Handelsvertreter e.V.’ (Association of Innovative Motor Vehicle Manufacturers and Trade Representatives) (VIKH) called for the forwarding of an individual exemption, or a negative clearance, for the application of different IHK member contributions. On what grounds is the Commission refusing to deliver the documentation or delaying in doing so, or alternatively, why has it still not taken the matter into consideration? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/17
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(28 March 2001)
The Commission has already considered questions concerning obligatory membership of and differences in membership fees for various Chambers of Industry and Commerce (Industrie- und Handelsskammern IHK) several times. The competition rules of the EC Treaty concern primarily the behaviour of under- takings or groups of undertakings. This is evidenced by the fact that the relevant Treaty provisions come into play in situations where there are restrictions of competition caused by agreements or concerted practices between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings, or the abuse of a dominant position by an undertaking. Furthermore, EC competition rules are only applicable when there is an appreciable effect on inter-state trade.
In Germany, the requirement of compulsory membership of a Chamber of Industry and Commerce and the principles governing the collection of membership fees for same are governed by legislation. The level of membership fees is determined within this legislative framework. Insofar as differences in the levels of fees for various Chambers of Industry and Commerce exist, these are based neither on agreements or concerted practices between undertakings, nor on a decision of an association of undertakings made up of Chambers of Industry and Commerce. Abuse of a dominant position is automatically ruled out by virtue of the fact that Chambers of Industry and Commerce are not considered to be undertakings for the purposes of EC competition rules.
The Commission has already replied to VIHK’s (Verband der innovativen Kfz-Unternehmer und Handels- vertreter e.V Association of innovative motor vehicle entrepreneurs and sales representatives) letter on 2 May 2000. To address the content of that letter, the Commission is not dealing with any application for negative clearance or exemption. Only the Chambers of Industry and Commerce would have the right to file such an application, but they have not done so. Besides, due to the legal situation described above, an application would be neither necessary nor appropriate. Consequently, the Commission has no documents, the handing over of which it could refuse or delay.
(2001/C 261 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4008/00 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission
(21 December 2000)
Subject: Impact of the German ‘Indusi’ provisional security systems on rail links with the Federal Republic
From 1 January 2001, the Federal Republic of Germany will be introducing the new safety system called ‘Indusi’ on all trains circulating in the country. Praiseworthy as the measure being taken of course is, it is going to cause many problems for the neighbouring rail networks, who will not be able to use their rolling stock on German railway lines since they do not possess the new system.
The regional Metz to Sarrebrucken or Luxembourg to Trier rail links, like many other international rail links, will be affected by the Federal Transport Ministry’s refusal to extend the current authorisations enjoyed by regional trains beyond 31 December 2000, until new rolling stock equipped with the Indusi system is available.
In view of the above, can the Commisssion answer following:
1. Does the attitude of the German authorities, the entirely understandable safety considerations which dictate it notwithstanding, not infringe the freedom of movement of persons and the provision of a cross-border public rail service?
2. Does the Commission not intend to urge the German authorities to grant other railway companies a transition period to allow them to carry out the adjustments needed to meet the new German safety rules?
3. Does the ‘Indusi’ affair not demonstrate just how necessary it is to harmonise safety and other operating conditions within the internal market of the EU (and the applicant countries)? C 261 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(8 March 2001)
The railways of the Member States have all been developed as national systems with different standards concerning electrification, signalling, loading gauge and other basic parameters. The signalling and safety systems differ from network to network and obstruct the interoperability of locomotives and trainsets. Generally a locomotive used in cross-border services must be fitted with the equipment necessary to comply with the various train protection systems in use on the networks, which is the case with the Thalys and Eurostar trains operating between Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The safety requirements of the networks are laid down in national legislation and have to be applied in a non-discriminatory manner to all operators.
The present situation represents, however, a major obstacle to the development of an interoperable trans- European rail system and has been the subject of several initiatives of the Commission during the last years. Since 1990 the Community has stimulated, also financially, the development of a harmonised European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) that should remove one of the major technical obstacles to the circulation of trains across the borders. Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996, on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (1) provides for the establishing of technical specifications for interoperability (TSI) of subsystems, e.g. control/command and signalling, of the high-speed system. ERTMS will be the future standard for the signalling system of the European high- speed rail system. A similar Directive on the interoperability of the conventional trans-European rail system (2) was proposed last year and is expected to be adopted early in 2001. In 2001 the Commission also intends to make a proposal on the harmonisation of safety regulations in the Member States.
Indusi is the train protection system which has been in use in Germany for many years. Generally it is a requirement under the relevant German legislation that locomotives running on the network be fitted with the Indusi equipment. The regional services referred by the Honourable Member are operated by the French and German railways, Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) and Deutsche Bundesbahn (DB). DB has since September 1996 been granted a temporary exemption from the German regulations, due to a delay in the adaptation of the French locomotives, which are normally equipped with KVB, the corresponding French safety system. To ensure a comparable safety level the railway operator has been obliged to provide an assistant to accompany the driver on the German lines. The question refers to the latest expiry of this exemption. According to information from the German Ministry of Transport the exemption was renewed on 30 November 2000 for a new two-year period, after which it is expected that the French locomotives will be equipped with Indusi.
The proposed Directive on conventional rail interoperability aims at harmonising the signalling and safety systems of the networks, thus making it unnecessary in the future to multiply safety equipment for traction units running across borders.
(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996. (2) OJ C 89 E, 28.3.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4010/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(21 December 2000)
Subject: Routing of Prague-Dresden motorway via nature reserve and Czech eligibility for joint financing
1. Is the Commission aware of the Czech government’s intention to route the D8 motorway, which will connect Prague with the German city of Dresden, through the Elbe (Labe) river valley, with the result that the protected landscape and nature reserve of Ceské Stredohorí in the unique Bohemian low mountain range of volcanic origin close to the German border will be cut in two? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/19
2. Is the Commission further aware that the above nature reserve had previously been protected by the Czech Environment Ministry, but that the Ministry subsequently issued a licence in accordance with which the public interest of the proposed motorway was deemed to be so important that it justified derogation from that protected status in favour of the proposed route?
3. Has it come to the Commission’s attention that the Czech government has systematically failed hitherto at subsequent planning stages to give any consideration whatsoever to an alternative route farther to the west through the brown coal-mining region near the town of Most, designated as route R7, which can probably be constructed without a significant increase in costs?
4. Can the Commission confirm that, as required by the Espoo Convention, there will be an environ- mental impact assessment, on which the nearby German border region can be expected to have its say, but that the Czech government considers the construction of this motorway as a purely internal matter, any interference in which from abroad should be resisted?
5. Can the Commission confirm that implementation of the Czech plans to build the D8 is dependent on joint financing to the extent of € 130 million by (Institutions of) the European Union?
6. Is the Commission prepared, in consideration of good-neighbourly relations, the Czech Republic’s application for European Union accession, the provisions applicable within the Union on the protection of nature and the environment, and responsible investment of Union financing, to promote efforts, at subsequent stages in developing and implementing road-building projects, to have alternatives to the D8 taken seriously into consideration?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(21 March 2001)
The D8 motorway is part of the trans-European multimodal corridor IV and is identified as part of the backbone road network for the Czech Republic in the transport infrastructure needs assessment (TINA) report of October 1999 for the candidate countries. The Commission has been made aware informally by Czech non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that depending on the routing of the motorway the nature reserve Ceske Stredohori might be affected. The same NGO representatives addressed the fact that the Czech Environment Ministry has issued a derogation from the Czech Nature Protection Act to allow the construction and put forward their criticism of the procedure in terms of planning and decision making.
If Community pre-accession funding is involved in such infrastructure projects the candidate countries are obliged to comply with requirements similar to those contained in the acquis. In this particular case it would mean that to obtain Instrument for Structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA) co-funding the Czech government would have to ensure that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) using similar standards as those required by the Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) is carried out. The Community has already implemented its obligations under the Espoo Convention via this Directive, which ensures that affected countries would be consulted.
According to information obtained by the Commission, the Czech Republic intends to implement its obligations under the Espoo Convention through the new EIA Act, which was approved by the Czech Parliament in February 2001, and is scheduled to enter into force in January 2002. Until then the existing EIA Act will stay in force.
Before any Community funding is granted, the applicant country will also have to investigate whether environmentally sensitive areas are affected which might fall in future under the protection of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) or the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (3). The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive ensures that negative environmental impacts on sensitive areas are taken into consideration in case plans or projects are likely to have effect on those areas. By C 261 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
definition ‘environmentally sensitive areas’ in the field of nature should be sites which have been identified by the national authorities as sites to be designated or proposed for the Natura 2000 network as laid down in the Habitats and the Birds Directives. As long as no lists of such sites have been identified by the competent authorities, which is the case in the Czech Republic, the following types of sites shall be regarded as ‘environmentally sensitive areas’ in the field of nature protection: (a) sites listed in the latest inventory on important bird areas for candidate countries (IBA 2000, prepared by Birdlife International) and (if available) equivalent more detailed scientific inventories endorsed by national authorities; (b) wetlands of international importance designated under Ramsar Convention or qualifying for such protection, (c) areas to which the Bern Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (Article 4) applies, in particular sites meeting the criteria of the Emerald network, (d) areas protected under national nature conservation legislation.
As already mentioned, the D8 motorway is included as a transport link in the TINA network. As such, projects included in the TINA network, and therefore, related to stretches of this motorway are potentially eligible for ISPA co-financing. So far the Commission adopted a decision the 29 December 2000 on co- financing project preparation for a number of Czech transport projects, including four schemes related to the D8 motorway located between Usti nad Labem and the German border at Petrovice. The objective of this project preparation facility is to assist the Czech Republic in preparing projects which are in line with the acquis, including all the information required by the ISPA Regulation.
After having finalized the project preparation for the Prague-Dresden motorway, the Czech Republic might submit an application form for ISPA funding to the Commission. The Commission will then perform a detailed examination of the application, including the environmental impact assessment of the schemes, consideration of environmental sensitive areas, and the proper consideration of alternatives, prior to reaching any decision on whether to submit a proposal to the ISPA Management Committee for co- financing the construction works.
In conclusion, the Commission will give proper consideration to the issue of the nature reserve Ceske Stredohori in the event of it being affected by any scheme for which ISPA infrastructure co-financing will be requested.
(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2001/C 261 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4034/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(3 January 2001)
Subject: 133 Committee
The 133 Committee is the real power behind and decision-making centre for the European Union’s commercial policy. It takes its name from Article 133 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. That article provides for the establishment of a special committee appointed by the Council to assist the European Commission. The 133 Committee constitutes the link between the European Commission and the Council.
Each Member State has one full and one substitute member to represent it on that committee. Those civil servants take important decisions relating to international trade issues such as the banana dispute, the supply of medicinal products to poor countries and the American levy on European steel. The Council resolves any political problems and ratifies the decisions taken by the committee. Some proposals are debated solely within the committee and approved en bloc by Coreper (the national civil servants appointed to the European Union) without further debate. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/21
1. When was the 133 Committee established and constituted?
2. Who serve as full and substitute members on the 133 Committee?
3. How many times has the 133 Committee met since it was established?
4. What issues has the 133 Committee debated and settled since it was established?
5. How many proposals from the 133 Committee has Coreper approved without further debate?
(2001/C 261 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4036/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(3 January 2001)
Subject: 133 Committee (2)
The 133 Committee is the real power behind and decision-making centre for the European Union’s commercial policy. It takes its name from Article 133 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. That article provides for the establishment of a special committee appointed by the Council to assist the European Commission. The 133 Committee constitutes the link between the European Commission and the Council.
Each Member State has one full and one substitute member to represent it on that committee. Those civil servants take important decisions relating to international trade issues such as the banana dispute, the supply of medicinal products to poor countries and the American levy on European steel. The Council resolves any political problems and ratifies the decisions taken by the committee. Some proposals are debated solely within the committee and approved en bloc by Coreper (the national civil servants appointed to the European Union) without further debate.
Are reports published about the documents used by and the debates in the 133 Committee?
1. If so, does the public have access to those reports?
2. (a) If not, why are no reports published about the documents used by and the debates in the 133 Committee, given the political nature of the decisions taken? (b) Will the Council ensure that, henceforth, reports are published about the documents used by and the debates in the 133 Committee? Will it also ensure that the public has access to those reports? If not, why does the Council refuse inspection of the decision-making process in the 133 Committee?
(2001/C 261 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4037/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(3 January 2001)
Subject: 133 Committee (3)
The 133 Committee is the real power behind and decision-making centre for the European Union’s commercial policy. It takes its name from Article 133 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. That article provides for the establishment of a special committee appointed by the Council to assist the European Commission. The 133 Committee constitutes the link between the European Commission and the Council.
Each Member State has one full and one substitute member to represent it on that committee. Those civil servants take important decisions relating to international trade issues such as the banana dispute, the supply of medicinal products to poor countries and the American levy on European steel. The Council resolves any political problems and ratifies the decisions taken by the committee. Some proposals are debated solely within the committee and approved en bloc by Coreper (the national civil servants appointed to the European Union) without further debate. C 261 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
1. Why are 133 Committee decisions not submitted to the European Parliament for debate and/or approval, given the political nature of the decisions?
2. Will the Council ensure that, henceforth, 133 Committee decisions are submitted to the European Parliament for debate and/or approval? If not, why does the Council refuse to submit 133 Committee decisions to the European Parliament for debate and/or approval?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-4034/00, E-4036/00 and E-4037/00
(31 May 2001)
1. The Council would point out that decisions on the common commercial policy, are adopted by the Council in accordance with Article 133 of the Treaty on the basis of Commission proposals or recommendations.
2. Article 133(3) also establishes that the negotiations the Commission is authorised by the Council to open within the framework of the commercial policy are conducted by the Commission in consultation with a special committee appointed by the Council to assist the Commission in this task and within the framework of such directives as the Council may issue to it.
3. When the Treaty of Rome entered into force in January 1958, a special committee was set up in implementation of the transitional provisions of Article 111. It comprised senior officials from the Member States in the field of commercial policy, usually at Director-General level. Its composition remained unchanged when, in February 1959, Article 113 of the Treaty of Rome on the principles governing the common commercial policy became applicable. Subsequent amendments to the Treaty have not changed the basic provisions of this Article.
4. The Committee (at senior official level) normally met once a month. With the launch of the Tokyo Round of trade negotiations in 1973, it became necessary to convene meetings of the Committee more frequently and sometimes at short intervals. This led to the inception of a Committee of ‘deputies’, which normally holds weekly meetings, while the Committee of ‘full members’ continues to meet monthly. The 133 Committee (Deputies) is made up of delegates most of whom work in the permanent representations of the Member States in Brussels. The Council also set up sectoral committees Article 133 Committee (Textiles), Article 133 Committee (Services), Article 133 Committee (ECSC), Article 133 Committee (Mutual Recognition) and Article 133 Committee (Motor Vehicles).
5. Regarding discussions within the 133 Committee on proposals and working documents submitted by the Commission and documents that record the outcome of discussions within the Committee, it should be remembered that public access to Council documents is covered by Council Decision 93/721/EC of 20 December 1993, amended by Council Decisions 96/705/EC of 6 December 1996 and 2000/527/EC of 14 August 2000, which make provision for cases where confidentiality must be maintained, in particular with regard to commercial and industrial matters.
6. The Council is aware of the requests emanating from the European Parliament as regards decision- making procedures concerning the common commercial policy. These requests were examined at the Intergovernmental Conference which completed its discussions at the European Council in Nice. The amendments to the text of the Treaty agreed by the Conference did not affect this aspect of Article 133.
7. Both the Council and the Commission regularly brief the European Parliament on the salient aspects of the Community’s commercial policy and, under the Westerterp procedure of 1973, the Council keeps the European Parliament informed of trade agreement negotiations with third countries before the negotiations begin, as they progress and when they are concluded. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/23
(2001/C 261 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4060/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 January 2001)
Subject: Delay in deregulation of the telecommunications market in Greece
The Greek Telecommunications Organisation (OTE) is under an obligation to begin deregulating the country’s telecommunications market on 1 January 2001. However, it will not be feasible to open the market up significantly until mid-2001, as the OECD noted in a recent report. The basic obstacle is the OTE’s lack of a pricing policy for leasing its infrastructure to companies providing telecommunications services. Moreover, Presidential Decree 437/95 assigned to OTE frequencies for every service, including those which, according to international criteria, should be used for UMTS third-generation mobile telephony. The legislation concerned is directly contrary to Community law (Directive 97/13/EC (1)on licences) and even to Greek law itself (Law 2246/94, as applicable to 31 December 2000, and the Law on telecommunications and related matters, which has been adopted and is to be published shortly in the Government Gazette).
1. What information does the Commission have concerning the benefits to Greek consumers to be derived from the deregulation of telecommunications at the prescribed time?
2. Has the Commission requested explanations from the Greek Government concerning the failure to meet the relevant deadlines and, if so, what clarification did the Greek authorities provide?
3. What measures will the Commission take to resolve the delay in deregulating telecommunications in Greece and what action will it take should Greece not meet the deadlines laid down?
(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 15.
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(12 March 2001)
1. Concerning the benefits to Greek consumers arising from the deregulation on 1 January 2001, the Commission has identified a number of benefits deriving from the liberalisation of the telecommunications markets, most recently in its sixth Report on the implementation of the telecommunications regulatory package (1), which was published in December 2000. The Commission has also stressed on many occasions that liberalisation of the telecommunications markets encourages economic development in the Member States and in particular that consumers will benefit from having the opportunity of using high-quality services at lower prices and having more choice in selecting these services, and that new technologies will be deployed more rapidly.
2. The Commission follows closely the implementation of the Community Directives in all Member States. In those cases where there is a failure either to transpose or to implement the Directives effectively, the Commission has consistently taken action against the Member States concerned. In the case of Greece, ten infringement proceedings were opened either for failure to communicate the national measures to transpose the Directives or for not implementing them correctly. Seven of these were closed upon notification of the measures transposing the Directives, while three are still pending. In particular, the Commission has formally requested the Greek authorities to submit their observations in regard to the implementation of the licensing (2) and interconnection (3) Directives and, as regards the specific matter raised by the Honourable Member of the pricing of leased infrastructure, the adoption of a cost accounting system as required by the leased lines Directive (4). In relation to UMTS, Decision No 128/1999/EC (5) requires Member States to take all actions necessary to allow the introduction of UMTS services by 1 January 2002 at the latest. In this regard, the Greek Government has informed the Commission that it is planning to launch a competition for granting UMTS licences by June 2001. C 261 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
3. As full liberalisation took effect in January 2001, the Commission follows closely the developments in all segments of the Greek telecommunications market, and should a violation of Community law come to its attention, it is committed to using all tools provided by the EC Treaty to force Greece to comply with its obligations arising from Community law. In September 2000, the Commission held a bilateral meeting with the Greek authorities where it stressed that it has a Treaty obligation to open further proceedings against Greece in cases where Community law is not applied.
(1) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2000) 814 final. (2) Directive 97/13 EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorizations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services, OJ L 117, 7.5.1997. (3) Directive 97/33/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in Telecommunica- tions with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP), OJ L 199, 26.7.1997. (4) Council Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of open network provision to leased lines, OJ L 165, 19.6.1992. (5) Decision No 128/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 1998 on the coordinated introduction of a third-generation mobile and wireless communications system (UMTS) in the Community, OJ L 17, 22.1.1999.
(2001/C 261 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4102/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(10 January 2001)
Subject: The EIB and the Århus Convention
Does the Commission consider that the European Investment Bank (EIB) is covered by the obligations contained in the Århus Convention?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(22 March 2001)
The United Nations Economic Commission of Europe’s Convention on access to Justice, public participa- tion in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (the ‘Aarhus Convention’) has been signed by all the Member States and by the Community. It will only enter into force when the minimum number of ratifications (16) has been reached. This is not yet the case.
A declaration in the Convention, made at time of signature by the Community, provides the following:
Within the institutional and legal context of the Community and given also the provision of the Treaty with respect to future legislation on transparency, the Community also declares that the Community institutions will apply the Convention within the framework of existing and future rules on access to documents and other relevant rules of Community law in the field covered by the Convention. The Community will consider whether any further declarations will be necessary when ratifying the Convention for the purpose of its application to Community institutions.
A legislative proposal for a Regulation prepared by the Commission (1) is at present being discussed by the Parliament and the Council. It is based on Article 255 (ex Article 191A) of the EC Treaty and regards the access to documents of the Community institutions. This proposed Regulation concerns the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which are the three Community institutions foreseen by the same Article 255. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/25
The European Investment Bank (EIB) has informed the Commission that it is committed to the Community objective of transparency, taking into account the conditions determined by the Bank’s particular nature and specific mission. It aims to keep its information policy in step with evolving best practice in the banking sector and to disclose information to the maximum extent possible. In doing so, the EIB will take into account the general spirit of the Aarhus Convention and of any other relevant international legal instrument. This is without prejudice to any future obligations, which may derive from the Community legislative process.
(1) COM(2000) 30 final (OJ C 177 E, 27.6.2000).
(2001/C 261 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4111/00 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(16 January 2001)
Subject: Hunger strike by Turkish prisoners
For more than fifty days hundreds of prisoners have been on hunger strike in 18 prisons in Turkey: they are protesting about the decision by the authorities to transfer them to new F-type prisons with smaller cells, since this deprives them of basic rights, such as the right to communicate and the possibility of giving each other moral support.
In view of this, will the Council say how a country seeking accession to the European Union can violate prisoners’ rights in such brutal manner and endanger their lives, and whether behaviour such as that of the Turkish authorities is in keeping with the partnership agreement concluded recently between the EU and Turkey?
Reply
(30 May 2001)
The Turkish Government is well aware of the EU’s strong views on the need to improve the situation in Turkish prisons. Indeed, the Council has included this issue in the medium-term priorities of the Accession Partnership: ‘adjust detention conditions in prisons to bring them into line with the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and other international norms’. Moreover, Turkey has recently adopted a National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis, which indicates Turkey’s intentions with regard to the Accession Partnership.
In bilateral meetings with Turkey, the European Union has registered its concern about the police methods deemed necessary by the Turkish authorities in December of last year to deal with the hunger strikes and the unrest in Turkish prisons, such practices not being required for the introduction of the reforms provided for in the Accession Partnership. The Council welcomes the intention of the Turkish authorities to continue to cooperate with the Council of Europe in this respect, in particular with its Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The Council will continue to monitor the situation.
(2001/C 261 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4135/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(16 January 2001)
Subject: Laying Hens Directive (1999/74/EC)
Is the Commission aware that some animal welfare organisations are concerned that so-called enriched cages are not included in the cage ban under the Laying Hens Directive (1999/74/EC) (1)? C 261 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Is the Commission concerned that the exclusion of enriched cages from the Directive could represent a ‘loophole’ as farmers might adapt existing battery cages to render them legal after the ban on battery cages enters into force in 2012?
(1) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(7 March 2001)
The Commission is aware that some animal welfare organisations in the Community are concerned that the ban on cages under the Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999, laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, is limited to unenriched cage systems.
The Directive reflects the conclusions of a specific opinion of the Scientific Veterinary Committee. This opinion, adopted in 1996, highlights that the welfare conditions of hens kept in battery cages without any enrichment are inadequate. The enrichment of the cages provided in 1999 is supposed to compensate for certain disadvantages for the welfare of the hens.
According to Article 10 of the Directive the Commission shall submit a report to the Council not later than 1 January 2005, drawn up on the basis of an opinion from the Scientific Veterinary Committee, on the various systems of rearing laying hens. One of the objectives of this report will be to evaluate enriched cages, which are still under development and which are not yet widely used in commercial farms.
The Directive does not exclude the transformation of existing battery cages into enriched cages. As long as the minimum standards for the enriched cages laid down in the Directive are fulfilled this could not be regarded as a circumvention of the ban.
(2001/C 261 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4154/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(16 January 2001)
Subject: Protecting political prisoners in Turkey against hatred, arbitrary treatment and circumstances which may result in death
1. Is the Council aware of the hunger strike by more than 800 prisoners in Turkey which has been going on since 20 October, and of the support for this hunger strike in the form of solidarity campaigns and hunger strikes in the Member States of the European Union?
2. Does the Council agree that at first sight it seems rather strange that within the countries of the European Union prisoners mostly wish their privacy to be respected and not more than one person to be accommodated in each cell, whereas prisoners in Turkey are protesting against a ‘modernisation’ of the prison system which will result in their being moved from dormitory-style wards to individual cells in newly built or planned F-type prisons?
3. Does the Council appreciate that the position of people who are imprisoned for ‘political offences’ which would not generally have resulted in a prison sentence in Member States of the European Union and who therefore see themselves as political prisoners is different from that of individual convicts who have committed crimes, partly because they fear that solitary confinement will expose them to the risk of uncontrollable intimidation and mistreatment, while medical treatment may not be available to them, because they are hated by their guards and by the authorities concerned?
4. What will the Council do through the contacts with Turkey, an applicant for membership of the European Union, in order to reduce to a minimum the number of political prisoners in that country and in the case of those who are nonetheless incarcerated to secure a special status for them, which is subject to international monitoring, such as to protect them in so far as possible against hatred, arbitrary treatment and circumstances which may lead to their death? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/27
5. What scope is there for diplomats from European Union Member States to visit prisoners and members of their families in the near future and how might it be possible to offer to mediate, thereby helping to avoid faits accomplis which will result in further escalation of the conflict?
Reply
(31 May 2001)
With regard to paragraphs 1 to 3, the Council refers the Honourable Member to its answer to question E-4111/00 concerning the hunger strike by Turkish prisoners.
With regard to paragraph 4, the Council hopes that the efforts to strengthen the legal and constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, which are included in the short- term priorities of the Accession Partnership, will lead to a considerable reduction in the number of political prisoners. Turkey is also expected to ‘address in this context the situation of those persons in prison sentenced for expressing non-violent opinions’.
With regard to paragraph 5, to the knowledge of the Council, diplomats from Member States have in the past been able to visit prisoners only in certain specific cases.
The Council has not so far discussed the possibility mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question.
(2001/C 261 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0003/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(17 January 2001)
Subject: Spanish Draft Plan relating to management of water resources
In July 2000, the Spanish Government put forward a proposal for a new water-resources management plan aimed at introducing a new fully-integrated legal framework for water management. The plan is due to come before the Spanish Parliament early next year. The issue of interregional water transfers has been, and is likely to remain, the bill’s most controversial point, but the Spanish Government is speeding up multiple projects for large-scale reservoirs and water-transfer systems that will have an extremely serious social and environmental impact through failure to respect the precautionary principle, with particular regard to sustainable water management. The Aragón Regional Government has already given notice that it will oppose any attempt to transfer water from its own basins.
Is the European Commission aware of the Spanish Government’s plans to build a large number of new dams and water-transfer systems as part of its new water-resources management plan? Can the Commi- ssion confirm that the Spanish Government has already received EU funding to finance these plans and from which European programme or fund? Will the Spanish Community Support Framework, financed by the Structural Funds 2000-2006, and the Cohesion Fund allocate funding to support these water-transfer operations? If so, how can these operations be justified under the requested ex-ante environmental appraisal for the Structural Funds and the strategic assessment for the Cohesion Fund? Are the Spanish plans in line with the provisions on water transfers set out in the new Water Framework Directive (2000/ 60/EC)? Is the Spanish draft plan in line with the article of the new Water Framework Directive relating to water pricing, and the common guidelines for the use of water charging (1) current being drawn up?
(1) Pricing policies for enhancing the sustainability of water resources COM(2000) 477. C 261 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(6 April 2001)
The draft ‘Plan Hidrológico Nacional’ received a favourable vote of the consultative body ‘Consejo Nacional del Agua’ on 30 January 2001. It was adopted by the Spanish government on 9 February 2001 and was passed by the lower chamber of the Spanish parliament in mid March. The project has been subject to a large consultation with all concerned stakeholders and a detailed analysis will be possible once it is in its final version. The Plan encompasses the analyses and elements related to the different river basins, but it also constitutes a global framework for national water policies and actions which goes beyond the meaning of River Basin Management of the Water Framework 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).
With regard to the latter Directive, the implementation of the Plan should comply with the following mandatory obligations:
a) the elaboration of detailed river basin management plans for each entire individual river basin in Spain by 2009,
b) the elaboration of an analysis of pressures and impacts including an economic analysis by 2004.
Moreover, for the shared river basins like the Duero, Tajo and Miño rivers, such plans must be developed in close cooperation with Portugal.
As for the elaboration of the river basin management plans, a range of Community legislation is relevant and already mandatory beyond the Water Framework Directive, e.g. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2), Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3), and Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (4). The Commission will, in its role as Guardian of the Treaties, carefully observe the issue.
As regards water transfers, the Water Framework Directive does not per se prohibit these. However, they have to comply with the environmental objectives, such as providing sufficient water quantity in the basin of abstraction/diversion to meet the requirements of good ecological status, and not interfering with other Community legislation such as the Birds and Habitats Directives.
As regards the economic aspects and pricing, the obligations under the Water Framework Directive are clearly specified. Firstly, an economic analysis has to be carried out per river basin, taking into account all water uses, and serving as well as a basis for the future water pricing policy. The deadlines to respect are 2004 for the economic analysis, and 2010 for water pricing being operational. The Commission Communication of July 2000 on ‘Pricing policies for enhancing the sustainability of water resources’ provides principles and guidance for implementing the economic requirements of the Water Framework Directive.
The Community Support Framework for structural intervention in Objective 1 regions in Spain for 2000- 2006 sets out a number of priorities, including water resources. It calls for an integrated water resource management strategy for individual basins and sub-basins, whose aim following the guidelines of the Water Framework Directive is to create complete operational systems which will be incorporated in and coordinated by the National Hydrological Plan.
To date, several projects in this field have been co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund, on the basis of the plans for individual basins. The Spanish authorities have presented a framework water-supply strategy with project selection criteria and an initial list of priority activities for each basin. Sets of projects for individual basins are now being examined by the Commission with a view to possible co-financing through the Cohesion Fund during the period 2000-2006. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/29
The Commission will ensure that the programmes it co-finances are implemented in accordance with current legislation and that all activities are consistent and compatible with Community policy, including environment policy. It must be emphasised that the Hydrological Plan is very general in character. When it comes to assessing whether individual projects are compatible with, for example, the Water Framework Directive or the Habitats Directive, far more detail will be required, as dictated by the legislation in question.
(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2001/C 261 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0033/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(18 January 2001)
Subject: The increased incidence of bromisum containing flame retardants in human beings and foodstuffs comparable with PCBs
1. Can the Commission confirm that bromisum containing flame retardants show a similarity in terms of their toxicity with the PCBs that attracted much attention in the 80s because of their poor biodegrad- ability, that they also end up via the food chain in the fatty tissue of human beings and interfere with hormones and that, according to Swedish research, they accumulate in the mother’s milk with the result that children suffer damage to their memory and motor system even before birth?
2. Can it further confirm that the release of such flame retardants into the environment also takes the form of discharges during production, losses during the impregnation of plastics and the scrapping of products treated with these substances and that they increasingly turn up in meat, fish and crops intended for human consumption and are even encountered in fish that are washed ashore?
3. Is it true that attempts have been made to place voluntary restrictions on the use of such flame retardants with the relevant industry but that, in the meantime, their use has increased with the result that the scale of the risks involved bears a strong resemblance to that of PCBs in the recent past?
4. Can it confirm that Germany banned toxic flame retardants back in 1986 but that, at the same time, the relevant industry in other countries remains opposed to such a ban, while the Dutch government is of the opinion that it must await the search for alternatives and an EU-wide ban on the most toxic varieties in 2008?
5. Do circumstances exist that prevent Member States other than Germany from anticipating or going further than the future ban referred to in paragraph 4? What action is the Commission taking to remove these obstacles?
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(27 March 2001)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers provided on the same subject to Written Questions E-2616/00 (1) by Mr Davies, E-2504/99 (2) by Mrs Thors, P-1976/99 (3) by Mrs Schörling, E-3004/98 (4) by Mr Eisma and to the oral question H-776/99 (5) by Mrs Schörling. C 261 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (6), the European Chemicals Bureau in co-operation with the Member States has co-ordinated the scientific discussions resulting in the adoption of comprehensive risk assessments on three commercially available brominated flame-retardants.
The three substances are:
Pentabromodiphenyl ether (pentaBDPE), (CAS 32534-81-9) Rapporteur: United Kingdom;
Octabromodiphenyl ether (octaBDPE)) (CAS 32536-52-0) Rapporteur: France and United Kingdom; and
Decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDPE)) (CAS 1163-19-5) Rapporteur: France and United Kingdom.
The risk assessment report on pentaBDPE concludes that the substance is highly persistent and bioaccu- mulative and is widely found in environmental biota, including the fatty tissue of fish and marine animals. It has also been detected, albeit at relatively low concentrations, but possibly increasing levels, in human breast milk. Following these conclusions the Commission has adopted the 5 March 2001, a Recommenda- tion on the results of the risk evaluation and the risk reduction strategies for the substances: diphenyl ehter/pentabromoderivative and cumene (7), recommending that marketing and use restrictions on the marketing for the substance should be considered in the framework of the Directive relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (8)).
The risk assessment report concludes that the higher brominated congeners, OctaBDPE and DecaBPPE, do not appear to bio-concentrate and so have a low potential for bio-concentration and bio-accumulation. However, the risk assessment reports for both these congeners conclude that there is a need for better information to adequately characterise any possible risks. A further programme of work is therefore in progress; in particular, the possibility of degradation in the environment to the lower brominated diphenyl ethers is being investigated further. This conclusion was supported by the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment in its opinion on 19 June 2000.
There are some chemical similarities between brominated diphenyl ethers and PCBs. However, there are also differences, in particular regarding the degree of bio-accumulation potential and toxicity among the different polybrominated congeners. These are reflected in the results of the risk assessments.
The Commission has adopted a proposal for a Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical equipment (9) (RoHS). The Commission is also considering restrictions in the framework of Directive 76/769 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations. According to the RoHS proposal Member States shall ensure that with effect from 1 January 2008 the use of certain heavy metals and two groups of brominated flame retardants, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), are substituted by other substances. This Proposal is currently being discussed in Council and Parliament.
Nevertheless, the flame retardant industry has since made a voluntary commitment to the environment and health programme of the organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD) to better control the use of the brominated diphenyl ethers. During the period of the voluntary action, imports of PentaBDPE into the Community have decreased.
Furthermore, to the Commission’s knowledge, the German Chemical Industry Association has voluntarily committed itself in 1986 to not using PBB and PBDE for production purposes.
Potential unilateral national bans on the substances before harmonised risk reduction measures are taken at Community level could be incompatible with the provisions of Articles 28-30 (ex Articles 30-36) of the EC Treaty. However, such bans may be justified on grounds which constitute fundamental requirements 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/31
recognised by Community law (among others the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants) but shall not be discriminatory or constitute an unjustified restriction on trade between Member States.
(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 134. (2) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000. (3) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000. (4) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999. (5) Debates of the European Parliament (December II 1999). (6) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993. (7) OJ L 69, 10.3.2001. (8) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. (9) COM(2000) 347 final.
(2001/C 261 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0037/01 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Council
(16 January 2001)
Subject: Effects on soldiers’ health of shells tipped with depleted uranium
The deaths from leukaemia and other forms of cancer of soldiers who took part in the Nato bombing of the former Yugoslavia and the broader consequences for their health have caused widespread indignation among European public opinion and have dented the credibility of the national governments and the European institutions.
Does the Council intend to undertake comprehensive and systematic scientific studies concerning these consequences and to announce the findings? What other measures does it intend to take to establish who is responsible and to protect the citizens of Europe from these consequences?
Reply
(31 May 2001)
The Council acknowledges the great concern of the public opinion relating to the use of depleted uranium in munitions. During their discussions on the occasion of 22 January 2001 meeting of the Council, Ministers expressed their commitment to seek full clarity on this issue.
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. 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.
Furthermore the Council noted that several bodies (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Health Organisation (WHO), NATO, the committee set up by the Commission) are currently examining this issue and the first reports are expected to be published shortly. Once these reports are available, the Council has agreed to re-examine this issue in order to assess whether any specific initiative or measures at EU level are warranted. C 261 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0038/01 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 January 2001)
Subject: Effects on soldiers’ health of shells tipped with depleted uranium
The deaths from leukaemia and other forms of cancer of soldiers who took part in the Nato bombing of the former Yugoslavia and the broader consequences for their health have caused widespread indignation among European public opinion and have dented the credibility of the national governments and the European institutions.
Does the Commission intend to undertake comprehensive and systematic scientific studies concerning these consequences and to announce the findings? What other measures does it intend to take to establish who is responsible and to protect the citizens of Europe from these consequences?
(2001/C 261 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0062/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(22 January 2001)
Subject: Incidence of leukaemia and tumours in the European Union
There have recently been tragic cases of leukaemia and cancer among soldiers who took part in the peace- keeping operations in the Balkans (including soldiers from Italy, France, Belgium, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic and Hungary) and there is a rising incidence of serious diseases such as leukaemia and various types of tumour and melanoma throughout the Community. The population of Europe is concerned and afraid that there may be links between the spread of such diseases and the use of depleted uranium during the conflict.
In view of this, does the Commission intend to ascertain the risk to human health and the environment posed by the use of depleted uranium munitions?
Is the Commission willing to release the figures in its possession concerning the current number of cases of cancer and leukaemia in Europe?
Does it intend to set up a committee of inquiry capable of: (a) swiftly obtaining scientifically reliable data to throw light on the possible link between the munitions used and the cases of fatal diseases; (b) studying the incidence of serious diseases in the Union during the last three years; (c) assessing the damage caused to the environment; (d) identifying regions whose food products must not be used; (e) ascertaining the impact on animal farming?
(2001/C 261 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0063/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(22 January 2001)
Subject: Cases of leukaemia and tumours among soldiers involved in the Kosovo war
There have recently been tragic cases of leukaemia and cancer among a large number of soldiers in the European armed forces who took part in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and there has been an exponential increase in the incidence of such diseases throughout the Community. Concern and fear have been aroused in the whole of Europe about the possible links between these illnesses and the use of 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/33
depleted uranium in the munitions used during the conflict. Furthermore, suffering was inflicted on the population by the bombardments and the use of depleted uranium has had disastrous effects on the civilian population, soldiers and hundreds of voluntary workers in Kosovo.
In view of all this, does the Commission intend to ascertain the truth about the effects of the weapons used in the Balkans and the various responsibilities for them?
Furthermore, will it ask the Member States to carry out health checks on all the soldiers who took part in the peacekeeping operation in the Balkans?
(2001/C 261 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0148/01 by Florence Kuntz (UEN) to the Commission
(23 January 2001)
Subject: Consequences of the use of munitions containing depleted uranium
The national federation representing French servicemen and women, concerned for their well-being and that of their European comrades in arms, has called for a clinical case definition of the ‘Gulf War’ and ‘Balkans’ syndromes.
In view of the various statements made by the medical authorities in the various countries of the European Union, would the Commission state its views and its position as soon as possible on the possible or known effects on public health of the use of munitions containing depleted uranium, i.e. the ‘Balkans syndrome’ affecting some French servicemen and members of the armed forces of other European Union countries who have served in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
Could the Commission state, as speedily as possible, the exact number of European servicemen and Yugoslav civilians affected by the use of such munitions, and the areas of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia concerned?
If a direct link is established between the use of this type of munitions and the ‘Balkans’ and ‘Gulf War’ syndromes, could the Commission state what priority public health measures it intends to propose to the Member States as a matter of urgency?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0038/01, E-0062/01, E-0063/01 and P-0148/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(15 March 2001)
The Commission has invited the Group of Experts established under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty to give an opinion on the possible health consequences of exposure to ionising radiation emitted by depleted Uranium. It has also facilitated a round-table discussion between international organisations with pro- grammes in this area.
The responsibility for soldiers who have served in the Balkans is with Member States and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The responsibility for taking action for the protection of people visiting the region is also with Member States. The Commission will transmit any relevant information it receives from international organisations and the opinion of the Group of Experts under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty in order to help Member States to decide on appropriate actions. The Commission itself will take account of the scientific advice in offering medical follow-ups to its civil servants and contractors sent to the region.
The information available at this stage does not provide any indication that foodstuffs are contaminated with depleted Uranium. C 261 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
The Commission is thus following developments relevant to the assessment of the possible link between cases of ill-health among those who have carried out missions in the Balkans and the use of depleted Uranium in missiles fired on targets in the region. Among the principle sources of information is the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) which has carried out a sampling campaign in the region, the results of which be available in March 2001.
(2001/C 261 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0048/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(22 January 2001)
Subject: Aid for Groupement Européen de Recherches Technologiques sur les Hydrocarbures
In her answer to written question E-1041/00 (1), Mrs de Palacio says that since 1990 the Commission has provided Groupement Européen de Recherches Technologiques sur les Hydrocarbures with total aid amounting to € 49 455 924. As a result, the latter has received ca. 62 % of EU aid for the French oil industry.
1. Who submitted successive requests for subsidies on behalf of the Groupement Européen de Recherches Technologiques sur les Hydrocarbures to the Commission?
2. When was the first request for a subsidy submitted by it to the Commission?
3. Who carries out checks on the Groupement Européen de Recherches Technologiques sur les Hydrocarbures (shareholders, holdings in other undertakings, composition of the board of management)?
4. What projects did the Groupement Européen de Recherches Technologiques sur les Hydrocarbures carry out in the period 1990-1998?
(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 110.
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(5 April 2001)
1. The list of companies submitting the different requests for subsidies to the Commission on behalf of the Groupement européen de recherches technologiques sur les hydrocarbures is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat.
2. The first request for subsidy for the Groupement européen de recherches technologiques sur les hydrocarbures (GERTH) was submitted in 1975.
3. GERTH can be defined as the following:
GERTH is an economic interest grouping (GIE) governed by the order of 23 September 1967 (statutory order promulgated by the French authorities authorising the creation of an economic interest grouping).
Created in 1974, le Groupe de recherches technologiques sur les hydrocarbures is made up of the following members:
ELF Aquitaine, Tour Elf 2, Place la Coupole, La Défense 6, F-92400 Courbevoie (No RCS Nanterre B555120784);
Totalfina SA, 2, Place la Coupole, La Défense F-92400 Courbevoie (No RCS Nanterre B542051180);
Institut Français du Pétrole (IFP) 1-4, Avenue de Bois Préau F-92500 Rueil-Malmaison. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/35
The list of its administrators, the name of its management auditor and of its board of management are being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat.
GERTH operates as follows: the grouping co-ordinate administrative and financial queries on projects of a scientific nature.
GERTH is involved in the preparation of projects and in the dissemination of results.
4. Lists of the projects carried out by GERTH between 1990 and 1998 are being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat.
(2001/C 261 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0051/01 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(22 January 2001)
Subject: Environmental impact of the construction of a road in Arouca (Portugal)
A call to tender is about to be issued for the construction of a road to create the Feira/IC2/Arouca link in the district of Aveiro in Portugal.
It will be an essential road link and the Portuguese Government has submitted or will be submitting an application to the Commission to fund the project.
However, the route of the road, in particular a section approximately two kilometres long in the valley of the river Arda, is facing great opposition, not least from various local organisations, since it will clearly have an adverse effect on the environment and landscape.
Furthermore, an environmental impact assessment already carried out indicates that in the section of the route referred to the occupation of the land alongside the river Arda will have a significant impact.
Nevertheless, not only are the authorities insisting on building the section of road, but have found a way of circumventing national and Community legislation on the subject, which in particular make environ- mental impact studies compulsory. This is the only explanation for the fact that a separate project for a distance of 9,9 kilometres (which includes the disputed section) is being drawn up, even though it is part of a road the total length of which is more than 30 kilometres.
In view of the above, can the Commission say:
1. whether or not it already knows about this situation and whether or not it has received an application for funding for the project;
2. how it intends to react in view of the environmental impact of building this stretch of road; whether or not it will make funding for it subject to consideration of the environmental impact studies carried out on it, and whether it accepts that the road project is being split up to prevent these studies from being taken into account?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(7 March 2001)
The Feira/IC2/Arouca road construction project is the subject of a complaint lodged with the Commission. It is being investigated at present. If it is found that there has been an infringement of Community legislation, the Commission will obviously draw the necessary conclusions with regard to future Com- munity funding. C 261 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
In addition, according to information received from the Portuguese authorities, this project has not been, up to this point, presented to the Commission for co-funding either under the Structural Funds or under the Cohesion Fund.
On first analysis, it was found that it appears to concern a project for a two-lane road covered by point 10(d) of Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997. (2) An environmental impact assessment under the terms of this Directive is, in principle, left to the Member States to carry out.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that the Member States have complete discretionary power, this being limited by Article 2 of the abovementioned Directive. The Member States have to take the necessary steps to ensure that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are subject to both a request for development consent and an impact assessment procedure before any permits are granted.
If necessary, the Commission will ask the Portuguese authorities, as part of the above investigation, for further details on how the impact assessment procedure for the project in question was carried out.
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2001/C 261 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0073/01 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission
(22 January 2001)
Subject: Nuclear safety
Does the European Commission have any plans to cut back the number of nuclear inspectors at the Euratom office?
If so, does not the Commission agree that such a cutback might compromise safety and lower standards at a time when the public and politicians are becoming increasingly aware of the danger of uranium and plutonium being diverted into military rather than civil use?
Does not the Commission also agree that any reduction in standards might put the EU at risk of violating international agreements and European law?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(19 March 2001)
In the framework of the reform process the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive review of all activities of its Services including the Euratom Safeguards Office. It is intended that a high level expert group will be established to analyse the activities of the Office in line with its obligations under the Euratom Treaty and to make recommendations regarding goals and objectives to be achieved.
The Commission takes this opportunity to clarify that the activities of the Euratom Safeguards Office devolve from the rights and obligations of the Commission in relation to nuclear safeguards, as provided for under Chapter 7 of the Euratom Treaty, rather than nuclear safety. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/37
(2001/C 261 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0080/01
by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(29 January 2001)
Subject: Integration of Galicia into the European high-speed rail network over 2000-2006
On 20 December 2000 the Galician regional government, represented by its President, and the Spanish national government, represented by the Minister for Planning, signed a cooperation agreement, with the participation of the Spanish state rail company RENFE, for construction and modernisation work for an internal high-speed rail network in Galicia and the linking of that network to the European networks of Spain and the European heartland (via Orense/Valladolid) and Portugal (again a high-speed link, connecting the La Coruña-Vigo coastal line to Oporto and Lisbon). The press reports stated that projects will be submitted by the Spanish government with a view to obtaining the necessary Community funding, while the Galician government insisted that the work should fall within the budget period 2000-2006. Yesterday, two weeks later, the Minister for Planning signed another agreement, with the Presidents of the regional governments of Murcia, the Valencian Community, Castile-La Mancha and Madrid, for the construction of a high-speed rail line linking Madrid to Cuenca, Albacete, Alicante, Murcia and Valencia, and it was announced that certain stretches of this line, cofinanced by the EU, will be inaugurated as early as 2005.
Since one year of the period 2000-2006 (concerning the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds, pursuant to the budget forecasts of Agenda 2000) has already passed, can the Commission finally state which rail lines within the territory of the Spanish state will be cofinanced by the EU and may be expected to be constructed within this seven-year period? Are the Galician high-speed links, as defined in the agreement signed by the President of the regional government and the national Minister for Planning, included in this EU cofinancing? Will construction work begin on the Galician high-speed network in the first half of 2001, as announced by those authorities? Will the Galician high-speed network use the international gauge?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(2 April 2001)
The selection of the projects to be part-financed by the Structural Funds under operational programmes (OP) is a matter for the national authorities. This selection is notified to the Commission only during programme monitoring and is made after adoption of the corresponding programming complement. At this stage, the Commission is not in a position to express a view on the specific operations to be part- financed under the ‘Galicia’ OP in 2000-2006.
The initial selection of the projects submitted to the Commission for part-financing under the Cohesion Fund is also a matter exclusively for the Member State. The Spanish Government regularly submits projects to the Commission but has not so far made any request for assistance to part-finance a high-speed train project in Galicia.
In accordance with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 relating to the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (1), the loading gauge, track gauge and space between the tracks of planned new high-speed lines must be the same as those used on the European rail network.
(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996. C 261 E/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0087/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(29 January 2001)
Subject: Fisheries agreements between Morocco and Japan, Russia, Korea and Norway
At a time when the Community fleet (notably vessels from Galicia, Andalusia and the Canaries) is immobilised in port, unable to fish in the Canaries/Saharan waters thanks to the non-renewal of the fisheries agreement with the Kingdom of Morocco, Morocco itself appears to have entered into new agreements with Japan, Russia, Korea and Norway. How does the Commission interpret this development, given the arguments on overfishing of its resources advanced by Morocco to justify not signing a new fisheries agreement with the EU within the next few years?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(28 February 2001)
To the Commission’s knowledge, Morocco has only concluded two other State-to-State fisheries agree- ments.
Firstly, with Russia, there was an agreement involving access for Russian vessels to fish pelagic resources such as mackerel, horse mackerel, and sardinella. This agreement expired on 30 November 1999 and has not been renewed.
Secondly, with Japan, there is an agreement involving 15 longline vessels to fish blue-fin tuna for those three months of the year when the tuna migrates through Moroccan waters. This agreement expires in September 2001.
Therefore, it is clear that these two Agreements do not interfere with the Community’s past and future interests and that the one with Japan is the only agreement currently in force.
Moreover, it should be underlined that the fleets involved do not target the same sensitive species with which Morocco claims to have conservation problems.
(2001/C 261 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0089/01 by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 January 2001)
Subject: Reverse discrimination against German participants in frequent flyer programmes
1. Is the Commission aware that frequent flyer programmes such as the Star Alliance programme confer a particular status?
2. Is the Commission also aware that a distinction is made between participants resident in Germany and other participants?
3. Does the Commission take the view that this constitutes reverse discrimination against the German participants in contrast to citizens of the other Member States of the European Union?
4. What steps, if any, is the Commission planning to take? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/39
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(5 April 2001)
The commercial practice of airlines offering different advantages to loyalty scheme participants depending on their place of residence does not appear to infringe the provisions of the ‘third air package’, since pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services (1) Community air carriers may set passenger air fares freely, and the advantages granted to passengers under loyalty schemes are an element of such fares.
The Commission has never found that frequent flyer programmes are, in themselves, in breach of Community competition law. However, in its examination of alliances between airlines the Commission has identified the combining of the frequent flyer programmes operated by the parties to the alliance as a factor making it more difficult for third parties to compete with the parties to the alliance and has proposed remedies to alleviate this effect (2).
(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992. (2) See, for example, Commission notice concerning the alliance between Lufthansa, SAS and United Airlines, OJ C 239, 30.7.1998.
(2001/C 261 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0101/01 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 January 2001)
Subject: Changeover to the euro for SMUs and SMIs
The changeover to the single currency presents a real challenge for SMUs, SMIs and extremely small enterprises, particularly cottage industries. According to a survey by Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, only 25 % of European firms are currently basing their accounts on the euro. Several studies indicate that many firms, particularly SMUs, SMIs and cottage industries are not ready for the changeover to the euro. Several ill- informed firms are even considering waiting until 2002 to start doing their accounting in euro. The switchover to the euro will, however, be rapid, given that national currencies must be withdrawn from circulation during the first two weeks of January 2002.
1. Can the Commission sum up the specific measures it recommends in order to facilitate the changeover to the euro for SMUs, SMIs and cottage industries?
2. Is the Commission not concerned that the business sector appears to be lagging behind in its preparations for the changeover to the euro?
3. Does the Commission not consider that it should target a practical information campaign at SMUs, SMIs and the cottage industries to supplement the campaigns which are to be conducted by each Member State?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(4 April 2001)
1. The euro impacts on most aspects of a company. As in the case of most companies, small and medium-sized undertakings and small and medium-sized businesses (SMUs and SMIs) will therefore have to adapt their computer and accounting systems, for example, consider the consequences for their business and marketing policy (e.g. new psychological prices), check that their cash registers are compatible (e.g. whether they can deal with payments involving a mixture of euros and the national currency or whether they comply with the round-off rules) and inform their staff about the details of the changeover to the euro (e.g. raise awareness of the new pay slip). C 261 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
2. The Commission conducts regular surveys on the subject, which suggest that much still remains to be done. It has repeatedly warned the national authorities of the problem. The Commission recommenda- tion of 11 October 2000 contains several measures aimed at greatly increasing awareness among economic operators regarding preparations for the euro (1). By and large, some of these recommendations are currently being implemented (e.g. early switchover of accounts and non-cash means of payment).
3. The Commission budget for providing information on the euro is mostly used to cofinance national communications programmes targeting, among others, SMEs. It is also being used to help fund a number of transnational campaigns aimed at SMEs, particularly in partnership with the association of Chambers of Industry and Commerce (Eurochambres).
(1) OJ C 303, 24.10.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0110/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(1 February 2001)
Subject: Air pollution and climate change
The world climate conference held recently in The Hague ended without agreement on a strategy to combat air pollution. The climate is therefore likely to continue deteriorating, causing great damage. A scientific report on climate change drawn up by the scientists of the IPCC (UN) has raised the alarm over the predictable disastrous consequences of such change unless action is taken as soon as possible to eliminate the causes. Meanwhile, even Europe is experiencing increasingly often climatic phenomena which devastate the environment and human lives, such as floods and heavy snowfalls which cause landslides or avalanches even in places which are usually immune from such occurrences.
1. Does the Commission share the fears expressed by the UN experts?
2. What is its opinion on the ‘disagreement’ of The Hague and on the incapability of the world political system of overseeing the globalisation of environmental emergencies and of making decisions on every- one’s behalf?
3. Does the Commission intend to maintain the objective established in Kyoto of a 5 % reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by the end of 2008?
4. What measures does it intend to propose to the governments, in the wake of this failure, to prevent as far as possible such dreaded environmental disasters?
5. Does it not consider it would be advisable to urgently refer back to the United Nations this issue which failed to be resolved in The Hague?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(23 March 2001)
The Commission regards the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an important warning that climate change is happening faster and to a more serious degree than originally expected. The report clearly stresses the importance of acting quickly and of making substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Final negotiations focused mainly on the relationship between the Kyoto mechanisms and domestic action (‘supplementarity’) and on land-use change and forestry (‘sinks’). However, there was not enough time to fully evaluate last-minute compromise proposals on the use of sinks in terms of their impact on countries 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/41
inside and outside the Community. There was nevertheless sufficient evidence that the final proposals would have seriously compromised environmental integrity and the Community therefore decided not to accept them.
The Commission strongly regrets that it was not possible to reach agreement in The Hague. However, the outcome of 6th Conference of the Parties (COP6) was not entirely negative and some good progress was made: for example, a set of proposals responding to developing countries’ needs and concerns was elaborated. Also on other issues such as policies and measures to reduce emissions, capacity building, technology transfer, emissions trading, joint implementation and compliance, progress was made at the technical level. All efforts should focus on finalising these decisions at the resumed session of COP6.
The Community is committed to the Kyoto target and, as stated at 5th Conference of the Parties (COP5), will undertake all effects for early ratification and entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol by 2002. In order to achieve the Community target of -8 %, an effective Community implementation strategy is necessary. With the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP), the Commission has made an important effort in this direction. The first phase of the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) will finish in May and will result in clear policy recommendations for all important economic sectors such as energy and transport. In the second half of this year, the Commission intends to come forward with its implementa- tion strategy accompanied by a proposal for Community ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
Negotiations between Parties in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have been suspended but will be taken up again later this year. Mr Pronk, President of COP6, is in consultation with the different regional groups regarding the best time to officially resume the negotiations and how to best carry forward the process.
The Community urges all Parties, in particular the new United States administration, to engage in the negotiations in a constructive manner with a view to reaching an overall agreement as soon as possible.
The success of further negotiations will require a constructive spirit. The challenge is to find compromises that strike the right balance between Parties’ concerns. Everybody wants cost-effective measures, but this must not compromise the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol and must ensure the necessary support for developing countries in terms of sustainable development.
(2001/C 261 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0120/01
by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(1 February 2001)
Subject: Wood preserving agents
In accordance with the biocides directive (98/8/EC) (1) pesticides for non-agricultural use have to be removed from the market, in line with the substitution principle, if a less harmful alternative is available. Wood preserving agents based on copper/chromium and copper/chromium/arsenic compounds impreg- nating acids have an effect on humans and the environment varying between harmful and highly toxic. C 261 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
By treating wood from temperate zones with different processes such as platonising and acetylation it is possible to preserve them without using toxic substances. Boreal wood treated in this way is just as strong as tropical hardwood. These processes are becoming increasingly common on the European market.
Is the Commission prepared to give serious consideration to this substitution method and should it prove satisfactory to apply it and to ban impregnating salts from the European market?
(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the markets (1) envisages an authorisation procedure for all biocidal products including wood preservatives. Under Commission Regulation 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products (2) active substances of wood preservatives will be in the first group of substances to be evaluated in the framework of the Directive. Complete dossiers on supported active substances are to be submitted to the competent authorities by 28 March 2004 at the latest.
On this basis the risks arising from each active substance will be evaluated and only substances posing no unacceptable risks will be included in Annex I to the Directive and thereby allowed to be placed on the market and used for biocidal purposes.
Furthermore, an active substance not deemed unacceptable but which still gives rise to concern will be a candidate for comparative assessment as laid down in Article 10(5) of the Directive. Under this procedure such a substance might be denied entry into Annex I if another active substance presenting significantly less risk to health or the environment is included in Annex I.
The Directive also obliges Member States to prescribe that biocidal products shall be properly used, including the rational application of a combination of physical, biological, chemical or other measures as appropriate, whereby the use of biocidal products is limited to the minimum necessary.
The Commission will take its responsibilities under the Directive seriously and all its proposals including those based on wood preservatives, will be based fully on the requirements of the Directive.
(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998. (2) OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0128/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(31 January 2001)
Subject: Timeliness of economic statistics
1. Further to the Commission’s answer to Written Question E-3426/00 (1) on 22 December 2000, will the Commission please provide information concerning earnings data, as requested in that question?
2. Will the Commission also state what undertakings, if any, it has received from Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg that they will improve the regularity and frequency of their GDP, employment and productivity figures?
(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 166. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/43
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission (15 May 2001)
With regard to compensation of employees, the requests to the Member States in connection with the action plan concerning the statistics required for EMU (European Commission Eurostat in close collaboration with the European Central Bank) are the same as for the data on gross domestic product (GDP) and employment (and productivity), as already stated in the answer to the honourable Member’s question E-3426/00 (1) on these aggregates.
The Commission action plan to improve the quality and especially the timeliness of national accounts data (GDP, GNP and its sub-aggregates) was adopted by the Council in September 2000. The Commission must now implement this action plan (see also answers to the honourable Member’s questions E-3426/00 and E-0138/01 (2)).
In response to the Council action plan, the Member States devised national action plans outlining the arrangements and schedule for carrying out the Council plan. In general, a lot of progress has been made in providing GDP data for most of the Member States (see also the Council’s third progress report of 19 January 2001), although some countries are still encountering some problems.
As for the situation regarding Greece, Luxembourg and Ireland, the Commission does not yet have any accurate information about when these Member States will be in a position to comply with the action plan with regard to GDP data as well as for data on employment (and thus also producitivity).
This will be defined as part of a proposal for a Council regulation on the matter, which is due to be submitted shortly by the Commission and which will replace the existing Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (3), in which there is provision for these Member States to be granted derogations.
(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 166. (2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 193. (3) OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.
(2001/C 261 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0129/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (31 January 2001)
Subject: Financial services
1. Will the Commission please indicate the share of GDP generated by financial services in each Member State in each year for the last ten years?
2. Will it indicate any particular methodological inconsistencies between the measurement of financial services in the Member States and any particular difficulties in assessing the value added in this sector?
3. Will it give the comparable figures for the United States and Japan?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission (7 May 2001)
The data requested by the Honourable Member are part of the National Accounts, a statistical domain structured by a methodological standard called the European Standard of Integrated Economic Accounts (ESA).
The data indicating the share of GDP generated by financial services in each Member State in each of the last ten years are sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
There are no particular methodological inconsistencies because the National Accounts of the Member States are based on the ESA.
There are no derogations relating to the definitions of the concepts. C 261 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
There are two versions of ESA. The new ESA (ESA 95) applies from 1999 and replaces the previous version (ESA 79) ranging from 1970 to 1997. It extended the concept of financial services: the production of insurance other than life insurance now includes income from the investment of insurance technical reserves.
The value added in this sector is composed of commissions and fees explicitly invoiced to the customers and the difference between interests charged on loans and interests paid on deposits, called Financial Intermediation Services Indirectly Measured (FISIM). Measuring the commissions and fees is rather easy because it is based on accounting, while measuring the FISIM is somewhat more complex.
The data for the United States and Japan are consistent with ESA 79 and are sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
(2001/C 261 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0132/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (31 January 2001)
Subject: Employees
1. How many full time and part-time employees have been employed by the Commission in each year for the last ten years?
2. How many self-employed people held short-term contracts with the Commission in each year for the last ten years?
3. What proportion of the total complement of the EU institutions’ staff was constituted by Commi- ssion staff in each year for the last ten years?
4. What proportion of Commission staff were involved in interpretation and translation (specifying each separately) in each year for the last ten years?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (26 March 2001)
On December, 31 of each year, the Commission employed:
Full time employees Part-time employees Year Total (1) (officials and temporay staff) (officials and temporary staff) 1991 15 542 515 16 057 1992 15 910 547 16 457 1993 16 260 594 16 854 1994 16 833 636 17 469 1995 17 607 627 18 234 1996 18 315 679 18 994 1997 18 903 767 19 670 1998 19 218 825 20 043 1999 19 065 923 19 988 2000 19 075 1 074 20 149
(1) Total of employed persons (officials and temporary staff) = full time + part-time employees.
The table comprises the officials and temporary staff in active employment, all budgets mixed (Adminis- tration, Research and Technological Development, Office for Official Publications and the European Anti- Fraud Office (OLAF)). 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/45
This question relates to a multitude of different types of contracts covering situations and tasks that are not comparable and the management of budget lines that permit the contracting of experts for short-term missions is decentralised to Directorates General. Such contracts could include short-term consultancy assignments, technical support for evaluations of proposals, conference assistance as well as many other types of technical assistance ranging from a few days to several months. Most of such assignments are carried out outside of Commission offices. Further clarifications of the specific types of contract which the Honourable Member has in mind are therefore required before any precise answer can be given.
Since the Commission does not have access to the exact staff numbers of the other Institutions, the share of posts in the Commission’s establishment plan in relation to the total number of posts in the establishment plans of all the Institutions is given below:
Commission Total Community institutions Year (permanent (permanent % and temporary posts) and temporary posts) 1991 17 175 24 629 69,73 1992 17 952 25 567 70,22 1993 18 576 26 359 70,47 1994 19 027 26 984 70,51 1995 20 143 28 868 69,78 1996 20 831 29 651 70,25 1997 21 190 30 048 70,52 1998 21 495 30 384 70,74 1999 21 603 30 599 70,60 2000 21 703 30 819 70,42
Commission: all budgets (Administration, Research and Technological Development, Office for Official Publications, OLAF, European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions)
Institutions: Commission, Parliament and European Ombudsman, Council, Court of Justice, Court of Auditors, Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions and Joint organisational structure.
The proportion of Commission staff involved in interpretation and translation is as follows:
Joint Interpreting Translation service Commission staff and Conference service (officials and temporary staff) Year (officials (officials and temporary staff) and temporary staff) %% 1991 16 057 472 2,94 1 636 10,19 1992 16 457 486 2,95 1 662 10,10 1993 16 854 479 2,84 1 662 9,86 1994 17 469 478 2,74 1 639 9,38 1995 18 234 528 2,90 1 737 9,53 1996 18 994 544 2,86 1 779 9,37 1997 19 670 604 3,07 1 867 9,49 1998 20 043 610 3,04 1 871 9,33 1999 19 988 623 3,12 1 864 9,33 2000 20 149 585 2,90 1 849 9,18 C 261 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
The table comprises the officials and temporary staff in active employment, all budgets mixed (Adminis- tration, Research and Technological Development, Office for Official Publications and OLAF).
(2001/C 261 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0140/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council (1 February 2001)
Subject: Legislative discussions
Does the Council see any problem in separating the items of a legislative and those of an executive nature discussed within the Council?
(2001/C 261 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0141/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council (1 February 2001)
Subject: Open debates
What is the Council’s objection to the opening up of its meetings to the public and the press whenever items of a legislative nature are discussed and put to the vote?
(2001/C 261 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0142/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council (1 February 2001)
Subject: Secrecy of national legislatures
Is the Council aware of any EU Member State which has a chamber of its legislature that meets in secret when discussing legislation?
(2001/C 261 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0143/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council (1 February 2001)
Subject: Democratic criteria
If a Member State decided that its national legislature should henceforth meet in secret, would the Council believe that such a Member State continued to meet the criteria set out in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union?
(2001/C 261 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0144/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council (1 February 2001)
Subject: Council secrecy
Will the Council seek the advice of its Legal Service so as to ascertain whether the continued practice of meeting in secret, even when discussing legislation, is consistent with: (a) the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and (b) the constitutional traditions common to the Member States? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/47
Does it consider that this practice complies with Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0140/01, E-0141/01, E-0142/01, E-0143/01 and E-0144/01
(31 May 2001)
1. The Council recalls to the Honorable Parliamentarian that it does not see any problem in separating the items of a legislative and those of an executive nature discussed within the Council. In fact, the Council already identifies matters where it acts in a legislative capacity (see Article 7 of its Rules of Procedure listing the cases in which the Council acts in its legislative capacity within the meaning of Article 201(3) second subparagraph of the EC Treaty), with, precisely, a view to enhancing transparency in this area of activity.
2. The Council recalls to the Honorable Parliamentarian that it has already gone a long way in opening up its proceedings to the public. Amongst measures taken pursuant to this line, the Council underlines:
the practice of holding at least one public debate on important new legislative proposals,
pursuant to Article 207 of the EC Treaty and the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the automatic release to the public of the results and explanation of the voting, together with statements entered in the minutes whenever the Council is acting in a legislative capacity,
the access to Council documents, which is normally granted whenever the Council acts in a legislative capacity, whilst the recourse to the right of refusal in order to protect the confidentiality of the Council’s proceedings is kept to the minimum required,
the publication on Internet of lists of provisional agenda items, including references to documents examined in connection with each agenda item, for meetings of the Council and of the Council’s preparatory bodies involving cases in which the Council acts in a legislative capacity.
3. The Council is currently working on the defining of new rules aiming at enhancing the existing rules on transparency for all legislative documents. The Council attaches considerable importance to opening up its legislative activity to the maximum extent possible, whilst balancing that with the need to preserve efficient and effective decision-making and the need to protect classified information and ensure confidentiality of its proceedings when it is acting in a non legislative capacity.
In this respect, this approach is in line with the undertaking contained in the ‘Declaration on the future of the Union to be entered in the Final Act of the Conference’ (see Annex IV to the draft Treaty agreed at Nice by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States), paragraph 6 of which underscores that the Conference‘recognises the need to improve and to monitor the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the Union and its institutions, in order to bring them closer to the citizens of the Member States’.
4. The Council considers that it would be inappropriate for the Council to comment on either the way in which national legislatures decide to organise their work, or on matters which are pure speculation or conjecture.
5. In any case, as far as breaches of Article 6 of the TEU are concerned, Article 7 TEU sets out the procedure to be used for determining a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the principles mentioned in Article 6(1). Moreover, the Council would draw the attention of the Honorable Parliamenta- rian to the fact that the Treaty of Nice also includes an additional provision in Article 7 allowing the Council to determine that a clear risk of a serious breach exists under which the Parliament will have a right of initiative.
6. The Council considers that its own practice is compatible with Article 6 of the TEU and sees no need to request an opinion of its Legal Service regarding the implementation of the Treaty and its own Rules of Procedure on this question. C 261 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0150/01 by Reimer Böge (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 January 2001)
Subject: Additional information in the labelling of beef
A major German food retailer which already conducted voluntary BSE tests on all slaughtered cattle prior to the entry into force of the current rules in Germany has been refused permission by the federal office responsible to provide information concerning this on labels pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1760/ 2000 (1).
The company in question had submitted four different proposed versions for approval. The Federal Office of Agriculture and Food rejected all four alternatives on the grounds that, under Article 16(2) of Regulation 1760/2000, misleading or insufficiently clear information is not permitted to be approved.
The proposed alternatives were as follows:
1. This meat has been tested for BSE. The test does not guarantee absolute safety, but does ensure greater safety!
2. Voluntarily tested for BSE (Prionics test). Our contribution towards reducing the risks.
3. Voluntarily tested for BSE (Prionics test). Greater consumer safety.
4. Greatest possible consumer protection. Voluntarily tested for BSE. No absolute safety.
What does the Commission think of the decision to reject the application?
Does the Commission agree with the federal office that the four proposed versions are contrary to Regulation 1760/2000 and therefore impermissible? Or does the Commission consider that the federal office’s interpretation of the regulation is rather restrictive?
(1) OJ L 204, 11.8.2000, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(4 April 2001)
The Commission is aware that, in a number of Member States, operators have made representations to their authorities with a view to labelling beef voluntarily with information pertaining to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) status of the animals from which the beef was derived. In the case of Germany, formal permission has been requested for making labels referring to the testing for the presence of BSE in the source animals and relating it to the reduced risk to health of such beef.
Firstly, the Commission would like to recall that the wide range of public health measures adopted up to now at a Community and national level have, as their overriding objective, that of ensuring that all beef released on to the Community is equally safe to eat.
Permitting an operator to distinguish his beef from that of his competitor on the basis of announcing his compliance with a public health measure, which applies equally to all operators, would, in the opinion of the Commission, give rise to an unfair advantage to such an operator and ultimately confuse the consumer. This is because such an indication gives the misleading allusion that the beef sold by any other operator, who does not happen to use this label, is less safe. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/49
It should be recalled that it is a principle of Community labelling legislation, as laid down in Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/13 EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (1) that labels shall not ‘mislead the purchaser to a material degree’ by ‘suggesting that the foodstuff possesses special characteristics when in fact all similar foodstuffs possess such characteristics.’
Furthermore, since the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (2) specifically states that voluntary labels containing misleading or insufficiently clear information shall be refused by the Member State, the Commission believes that the German authorities have a clear legal base on which to reject any voluntary indications, relating to the BSE status of the animals from which the beef was derived.
(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000. (2) OJ L 204, 11.8.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0156/01 by Jean-Maurice Dehousse (PSE) to the Commission
(31 January 2001)
Subject: Consequences of the merger trend in the airline company sector
The air transport sector has been characterised recently by a new trend towards mergers: Trans World Airlines has been acquired by American Airlines and U.S. Airways has been divided up between American Airlines and United Airlines. Furthermore, the press has announced that the Commission had provisionally approved these mergers on 12 January.
1. Will this merger trend affect the transatlantic market and will it influence the European market?
2. What would the consequences be in that case?
3. Is a similar trend likely to develop with regard to the European companies?
4. What will the consequences be for airline companies affiliated to the ones involved in the transactions (i.e. the six European companies affiliated to United Airlines through ‘Star Alliance’)?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(29 March 2001)
1., 2. and 4. As the Honourable Member points out, there have recently been two mergers in the air transport sector in the United States: US Airways has been acquired by United Airlines and Trans World Airlines (TWA) has been acquired by American Airlines.
Although such transactions must comply with the turnover thresholds specified in Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1), they are subject to prior notification to the Commission under the Community competition rules.
United Airlines’ acquisition of US Airways was duly notified to the Commission, which authorised it (subject to certain conditions) on 12 January 2001. More details of that transaction are available in the decision adopted by the Commission (Case COMP/M.2041) and published on the Internet (2). C 261 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
For the effects of the merger on certain transatlantic markets or on the ‘Star Alliance’, see paragraphs 35- 73 of the decision.
By contrast, TWA’s acquisition by American Airlines was not notified to the Commission since the turnover thresholds specified in the Regulation were apparently not exceeded.
3. To date, the Commission has not been informed of any developments of this kind among European airlines.
(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989; the Regulation was amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 (OJ L 180, 9.7.1997). (2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m2041_en.pdf.
(2001/C 261 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0157/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Council
(1 February 2001)
Subject: European social statute for housewives
In reply to Written Question E-2175/00 (1) the Commission drew attention to the fact that back in 1987 it submitted a proposal for a directive under which the gender equality principle would apply to statutory and occupational social security schemes.
The directive in question made provision for the individualisation of social security rights, which would extend to housewives, as an alternative to derived rights. Unfortunately the directive was not approved by the Council, despite the favourable opinions thereon of Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.
Given that it has been some time since the Council rejected the aforementioned proposal, and that a changed climate now surrounds the new strategy to modernise and improve social protection in Europe, does the Council believe that it ought to rethink its previous stance and accommodate the legitimate aspiration of housewives to enjoy equal status with the remainder of the population in general social protection schemes?
(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 184.
Reply
(30 May 2001)
As the Honourable Member rightly says, the Commission back in 1987 presented a proposal for a Council Directive completing the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in statutory and occupational social security schemes. The Council suspended its work on the matter in 1989.
The fact is that the proposal was based in part on Article 235 of the Treaty (new Article 308), so unanimity was required for its adoption. Several delegations had maintained reservations of principle on the proposal particularly in view of its financial implications.
On a general point, the Honourable Member is informed that while the coordination of social security schemes to safeguard the rights of migrant workers is indeed a matter for the Community, the structure and organisation of such schemes are a matter solely of individual Member State responsibility. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/51
(2001/C 261 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0162/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 January 2001)
Subject: Blueprint for bodies involved in Community activities of general interest
The crisis besetting the Institute for European-Latin American Relations (IRELA) ought to serve as the starting point for the deliberations that are required on a specific blueprint to govern the operations of bodies such as IRELA engaged in activity of specific interest to the Community, so as to ensure that they warrant assistance from the EU budget.
Whilst it is clear that assistance ought to be provided to bodies of this kind, since the European Union and the Commission cannot embark upon activities which do not fall precisely within their institutional scope, it is clearer still that a blueprint must be in place to guard against unpleasant surprises such as this and improvised solutions to potential crises in these bodies.
Does the Commission see the need to put forward a blueprint for the operations of bodies involved in Community activities of general interest, so as to ensure that they pursue their activities correctly and that there is proper justification for the assistance they receive from the EU budget?
Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
(29 March 2001)
Since 1996, Parliament has closely monitored the general conditions governing grants from the Union’s budget, in particular concerning the allocation of funds from part A (administrative expenditure) of the budget and the control of these funds. It has inserted budget remarks which lay down the conditions to be met by potential beneficiaries. The Commission has taken note of these conditions in its management of the budget lines concerned and has kept Parliament informed on the matter.
The vade-mecum on grant management adopted by the Commission in July 1998, (1) which has been in force since 1 January 1999, includes recommendations on the proper use of Community funds by grant beneficiaries. In particular, it states that the beneficiaries must be subject to monitoring and a final control, and must send in implementation reports for the projects subsidised, as well as the corresponding financial statements, which must tally with the provisional budget that was used as a basis for the Community grant. The vade-mecum also notes that the authorising officers must recover any sum unduly paid or giving rise to a profit for the beneficiary.
The proposal for the recasting of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977, adopted by the Commission on 26 July 2000 (2) and currently being studied by the other institutions, strengthens these provisions by making them applicable to all grants financed by the Community budget and allocated directly to the beneficiaries, whether they come under a specific programme or not. The recasting proposal confirms the need for checks on reports sent in by grant beneficiaries before the amount of the grant is finalised, without prejudice to the result of subsequent checks, notably those by the Court of Auditors. It requires all sums unduly paid for whatever reason to be recovered. Lastly, the proposal provides for the possibility to ask for a security as a guarantee that the beneficiary will fulfil its obligations and, on the other hand, to exclude from the award procedures for subsidies requesters who have been found guilty of fraud or of breaching their contractual obligations in the past.
The Commission considers that, over and above these rules on sound financial management, there is no reason to interfere in the organisation and the actual running of all the beneficiaries of Community grants, who make up a vast, diverse group of bodies representing civil society, varying in form and status.
(1) SEC(98) 1191 final. (2) COM(2000) 461 final. C 261 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0163/01 by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE), Umberto Scapagnini (PPE-DE), Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) and Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 January 2001)
Subject: Mad cow disease
The press is providing information on mad cow disease which is fairly comprehensive from a technical point of view, but which is incomplete from an institutional point of view.
This serious disease is not a new one, but it is only now that it is beginning to receive the attention it deserves, riding on the wave of emotion that has been aroused.
There is no scientific certainty as regards the long incubation period, the age of the cattle at risk, the inter- country movement of cattle and the effects on beef and dairy products.
Can the Commission therefore state:
1. what research investments have been made since the phenomenon first came to light (1985);
2. what degree of certainty there is with regard to the monitoring of meat movements both within the EU and in third countries;
3. what degree of certainty there is with regard to possible BSE-related human mortality over the past 15 years;
4. whether the precautions implemented by the Member States are deemed adequate on the basis of the information currently available;
5. whether it does not consider it would be appropriate to promptly step up scientific research, even if this means using unlimited resources.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(17 April 2001)
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 2nd and 3rd Framework Programme, € 50 700 million within the European Action Plan on TSE adopted by the Parliament and the Council in November 1996, € 1 060 million within the 5th Framework Programme). 54 research projects are running as part of the TSE Action Plan and three projects under the 5th framework programme. 15 new proposals have recently been submitted and are being evaluated.
The Joint Research Centre of the Commission has engaged in an extensive programme for the evaluation of post-mortem tests on BSE infection and the establishment 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.
The rules on the production, marking, storage and transport of fresh meat in the Community are laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra Community trade in fresh meat (1). The rules on checks applied to movement of meat and other animal products within the Community and on entry from third countries are laid down in Council Directive 89/662/EC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (2) and Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/53
third countries (3) respectively. In addition, further conditions apply to the labelling of beef and minced beef as to the Member State/third country and the approval number of the establishments of slaughter or cutting as appropriate. These requirements are laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1760/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products.
Up to early November 2000, a cumulative number of 83 deaths related to von Kreuzveldt-Jacob disease (vCJD) (81 in the United Kingdom, one in Ireland and one in France) have been reported in the Community. Microbiological/molecular biological evidence collected over recent years indicates that BSE and vCJD are most likely caused by the same (BSE) agent. This supports the hypothesis that humans probably became infected as a result of the consumption of BSE contaminated material, most likely orally (via food).
However, a number of uncertainties and unknowns, over such aspects as the transmission mechanism from animals to man, the exact nature of the infective agent and the length of the incubation period of vCJD (which could possibly vary from a few years to more than 25 years), indicate the need for further research, which is under way.
Member States are already implementing a wide range of BSE control measures introduced in recent years in the areas of SRM removal, rendering, feedstuff controls and epidemio-surveillance. On the basis of recommendations from the Scientific Steering Committee, these controls are now being strengthened with new measures on mechanically recovered meat, ruminant tallow and vertebral column.
In line with the conclusions of the Research Council of 16 November 2000, an expert group with representatives from Member States and 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.
The work of the expert group should provide the basis for strengthening the co-ordination between national research activities.
(1) OJ B 121, 29.7.1964. (2) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989. (3) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.
(2001/C 261 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0164/01 by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission
(31 January 2001)
Subject: Progress reached in introducing the euro in the different Member States in the euro zone
1. The Netherlands Ministry of Finance has recently published figures (eighth progress report on the euro and public authorities) on the lack of progress in introducing the euro by public authorities. For example, it appears that 64 % of Dutch local authorities have not yet started implementation of the euro process. Some local authorities (4 %), in fact, have not even started with their preparations. Local authorities are lagging well behind in the fields of communications and information in particular. Only 16 % have drawn up an external communications plan and only 31 % have an internal communications plan. Only 45 % have a management plan for adjusting their administrative systems. The preparations C 261 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
made by 60 % of social services and about 70 % of the implementing bodies are a cause for concern, with many still in the initial stock-taking phase. Is the Commission aware of these disturbing figures?
2. Does the Commission share our concern that progress in introducing the euro in the euro zone leaves much to be desired?
3. Can the Commission provide a breakdown per Member State of progress made, the problems (if any) and the bottlenecks in the individual Member States of the euro zone?
4. Can the Commission indicate whether the individual Member States of the euro zone are experien- cing similar, or very different, problems in the process, and what action the Commission is intending to take?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(4 April 2001)
The Commission has received information about the progress made by Dutch local authorities in preparing for the introduction of the euro. It would appear that while the present state of preparation at local level is very patchy, a number of good practices have also been observed and some Dutch towns and cities have played an active role in preparing a guide aimed at helping European local authorities to make the transition to the euro.
Work has started on improving local preparations, especially in the case of social welfare organisations, and it is particularly important to monitor progress, not only in the Netherlands but in all other participating Member States.
A recent Eurobarometer survey shows that forward planning and preparations for the introduction of the euro by small and medium-sized businesses are clearly inadequate. However, it has not yet been possible to take account of the vigorous national publicity campaigns launched at the beginning of 2001 or of the campaign by the European Central Bank which plans to introduce coordinated and specific information campaigns in the second half of 2001.
Every month the Commission prepares a ‘scoreboard’ on preparations for the introduction of the euro. This document, produced on the basis of information gathered from the individual national civil services, is presented to the Eurogroup Finance Ministers and published, in summary, on the Internet.
Generally speaking, preparations for the introduction of the euro present the same kind of problems in all Member States, although the scale of these problems may vary considerably which is why solving them should be a matter for subsidiarity. However, the Commission has not been idle. It has long been supporting Member States’ efforts by encouraging the exchange of information and good practice between the national officials responsible for the euro, co-financing national information campaigns and providing direct finance for specific Europe-wide actions organised by the civil society. This financial assistance is provided under the Prince programme, in which Parliament is involved at the level of preparation and monitoring.
(2001/C 261 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0168/01 by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission
(1 February 2001)
Subject: European Union approval of clean beaches
It was recently reported in the British press that the Europe Commission was considering fining the UK Government, or Blackpool Council, around £65 000 per day for apparently being in breach of the European Commission’s ‘Blue Flag’ safe beaches criteria. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/55
In relation to the above reports:
1. Is the European Commission proposing to fine the UK Government or Blackpool Council or anyone else, around £65 000 per day for being in breach of the European Union guidelines on safe beaches?
2. If so, which committee of the European Commission made this decision?
3. What right of appeal is there for the United Kingdom Government and/or Blackpool Council?
4. How many other British beaches, apart from Blackpool beach, are said by the European Commission not to meet their standards?
5. How many different beaches have been assessed by the European Commission in the entire United Kingdom?
6. How many beaches have been assessed in all other European Union countries? (Please state how many beaches have been assessed for each EU country)
7. On what previous occasions has the European Commission fined or proposed to fine other EU countries for breaches of its beach safety criteria?
8. What are the criteria that a beach must meet in order to qualify for a ‘Blue Flag’ safety award?
9. How much money has been spent by the European Commission, in each year since 1995, in monitoring the health and safety of beaches throughout the European Union?
10. Can the Commission list any reports which have been published by it on the monitoring of the health and safety of beaches throughout the European Union?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(18 April 2001)
1. Recent press reports concerning the Commission’s decision to refer the United Kingdom to the Court of Justice together with a request that the Member State be fined, relate to a decision of the Commission taken in December 2000. This decision was taken to follow up the judgement of the Court of Justice against the United Kingdom in 1993 (Case C-1990/56) for its failure to ensure that nine bathing waters around the Fylde Coast in North West England complied with the mandatory requirements of the Bathing Water Directive, Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (1). This second round of enforcement action was commenced when the majority of bathing waters in question were still found to fail in the 1996 and 1997 bathing seasons. Two out of the nine bathing waters concerned failed to comply in the 2000 bathing season according to the initial results provided to the Commission by the British authorities.
2. The original court action which resulted in the 1993 judgement was taken under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. The decision now to refer the United Kingdom to the Court of Justice for a second time has been taken under Article 228 (ex Article 171) of the EC Treaty. This Article gives the Commission the power to act against any Member State that fails to comply with a judgement of the Court of Justice. It also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on that Member State. In this case, the Commission has decided to propose to the Court of Justice that the United Kingdom be fined € 106 800 per day.
3. The action in question is taken against the Member State and not against regional authorities such as the Blackpool Council. The United Kingdom will now be in a position to defend itself according to the formal procedures of the Court. There is no right of appeal following a judgement of the Court of Justice.
4. A number of other bathing waters in the United Kingdom, apart from those implicated in the judgement in Case C-1990/56, have also been found not to be in compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Bathing Water Directive. As a result, the Commission decided in July 2000 to refer the United Kingdom to the Court of Justice under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. The compliance of bathing waters varies from year to year, but the results for each bathing season are published annually by the C 261 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Commission in an annual bathing water report. The latest report was published in May 2000 and related to the results of the 1999 bathing season. The report is also available on the Internet. The section of the report relating to bathing waters in the United Kingdom can be found at: www.europa.eu.int/water/water- bathing/report/uk.html.
5. The latest figures available are for the 1999 bathing season. These show that the United Kingdom has identified and assessed 541 bathing areas in coastal zones and 11 bathing areas in freshwater zones in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, plus six in Gibraltar. The national authorities of each Member State and not the Commission carry out the assessment of bathing water quality.
6. The overview table from the Commission Bathing Water Report published in May 2000 shows that for the 1999 bathing season there were a total of 11,435 coastal zones and 4,376 freshwater zones identified as bathing areas and assessed by the national authorities under the Bathing Water Directive.
7. This is the first time that the Commission has proposed to fine a Member State for failure to comply with an earlier judgement of the Court of Justice in the case of a failure to comply with bathing water standards.
8. The Blue Flag Campaign is a project initiated by the Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe (FEEE), based in Copenhagen (Denmark). One of a range of criteria used by this campaign is water quality, based on the guideline values of the Bathing Water Directive. The guideline values are stricter than the mandatory values (or imperative values) set by the Directive. There is no connection between the assessment by FEEE and the Commission, and the issue of beaches complying with the Blue Flag is the sole responsibility of the FEEE. Any questions on the Blue Flag Campaign should therefore be addressed to the FEEE, Scandiagade 13, DK-2450 København (Denmark).
9. The monitoring of the health and safety of beaches in order to check compliance with the requirements of the Bathing Water Directive is the responsibility of each Member State. The costs of monitoring are also met by the Member States. These results are then submitted annually to the Commission and form the basis of the annual bathing water reports.
10. The annual bathing water reports are published by the Commission each year and are now available on the Internet at: www.europa.eu.int/water/water-bathing/report.html.
(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
(2001/C 261 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0184/01 by Florence Kuntz (UEN) to the Council
(5 February 2001)
Subject: Consequences of the use of munitions containing depleted uranium
The national federation representing French servicemen and women, concerned for their well-being and that of their European comrades in arms, has called for a clinical case definition of the ‘Gulf War’ and ‘Balkans’ syndromes.
In view of the various statements made by the medical authorities in the various countries of the European Union, would the Council state its views and its position as soon as possible on the possible or known effects on public health of the use of munitions containing depleted uranium, i.e. the ‘Balkans syndrome’ affecting some French servicemen and members of the armed forces of other European Union countries who have served in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
Could the Council state, as speedily as possible, the exact number of European servicemen and Yugoslav civilians affected by the use of such munitions, and the areas of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia concerned? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/57
If a direct link is established between the use of this type of munitions and the ‘Balkans’ and ‘Gulf War’ syndromes, could the Council state what priority public health measures it intends to propose to the Member States as a matter of urgency?
Reply
(31 May 2001)
During its discussions on the occasion of its 22 January 2001 meeting, the Council acknowledged the great concern of public opinion and expressed its commitment to seek full clarity on the issue of depleted uranium. There was general agreement that in the first instance it was for NATO, as the institution organising crisis management in the Balkans, to assemble the information from participants on the use of depleted uranium, on the locations of troops and on medical data. The Council 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 also noted that several bodies (UNER, WHO, NATO, the committee set up by the Commission) were examining this issue. Conclusions of the report from the Expert Group of article 31 of Euratom Treaty, were issued on 6th March 2001. Other reports are expected to be published shortly. The Council has agreed to re-examine this issue in the light of those reports in order to assess whether any specific initiative or measures at EU level are warranted.
(2001/C 261 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0186/01 by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Council
(5 February 2001)
Subject: Exchange of information concerning health hazards to military personnel
It is well known that concern is felt throughout Europe about the possible hazard posed by the toxicity of the depleted uranium in munitions used by NATO soldiers.
The University of Witten-Herdecke in Germany has studied the health of radar technicians in the German army who worked with the Hawk and Patriot missile defence systems. Of the 99 former radar technicians examined, 69 have contracted cancer. 24 of them have now died. This was reported by the German television station ZDF on 13 January 2001.
1. Is the Council aware of the latter report?
2. Does the Council agree that concern about the health of employees in Europe’s armies could damage the common security policy?
3. If so, does the Council agree that information about the health of European military personnel is covered by Article 16 of the Treaty and that all information concerning this and other matters should be shared by the Member States as soon as it becomes available?
4. Is the available information concerning the possible damaging effects of the Hawk and Patriot missile defence systems currently being shared by the Member States whose military personnel work with these systems? How is this information exchange coordinated?
5. Will the Council keep the European Parliament informed about the above and any related matters, pursuant to Article 21 of the Treaty? C 261 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Reply
(31 May 2001)
The report referred to in the Honourable Member’s question has never been submitted to the attention of the Council. Therefore its content has not been discussed.
The health of national troops that Member States may commit to EU-led crisis management operations will certainly be a concern in the Council when deliberating on crisis management. During its discussions on the occasion of its 22 January 2001 meeting, the Council acknowledged the great concern of the public opinion and expressed their commitment to seek full clarity on the issue of depleted uranium, calling, in line with article 16 of the Treaty for full transparency and open exchange of information between the authorities of the Member States, as well as with other organisations investigating this matter.
There was general agreement however 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.
The Council also noted that several bodies (UNEP, WHO, NATO, the committee set up by the Commission) were examining this issue. Conclusions of the report from the Expert Group of article 31 of Euratom Treaty, were issued on 6th March 2001. Other reports are expected to be published shortly. Once these reports are available, the Council has agreed to re-examine this issue in order to assess whether any specific initiative or measures at EU level are warranted.
In accordance with Article 21 of the Treaty, the European Parliament is regularly kept informed of the development of the Union’s foreign and security policy. It will certainly be informed of the findings of these inquiries and the possible follow-up.
(2001/C 261 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0187/01
by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(5 February 2001)
Subject: Common foreign policy on Kosovo
The Parliament of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia very recently adopted an Amnesty Law for those who refused to serve in the Yugoslav People’s Army and for prisoners convicted of crimes against the army or of ‘activities hostile to the State’. According to statements by Yugoslavia’s Minister of Justice, Moncilo Grubac, on 9 January 2001, this law does not apply to those convicted of terrorism. This means that the amnesty does not extend to some 700 Albanian Kosovar prisoners in Serbia because they were convicted of ‘terrorism’. This is despite the recent undertaking given by Yugoslavia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Goran Svilanovic, in Washington that Albanian prisoners would be released, and despite similar promises made by President Kostunica to the EU among others.
1. Is the Council considering expressing its disapproval of these developments? If not, why not?
2. What measures will the Council take to put pressure on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to fulfil the official pledges concerning the release of all Albanian political prisoners? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/59
Reply
(31 May 2001)
The Council remains seriously concerned about the political prisoners detained in Serbia, including the approximately 700 Kosovo Albanians referred to by the Honourable Member, and has repeatedly pressed the competent authorities for their release.
The Yugoslav Federal Government submitted to Parliament on 22 January a draft amnesty law, which is presently under discussion. Its adoption is expected by the end of the month of February. The draft law covers political prisoners, including part of the 700 Kosovo Albanians referred to by the Honourable Member.
In the EU’s view the initiative undertaken by the new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) leadership, while welcome, did not go far enough. Therefore, the European Union has been exercising strong pressure on Belgrade, not least directly on President Kostunica during the recent visit of the EU Ministerial Troika on 8 February. On that occasion, and during a previous visit to Stockholm, President Kostunica assured his EU interlocutors that all the cases of those prisoners not covered by the amnesty law would be reviewed, indicating, however, that this process could take two to three months. The European Union will certainly continue to give this issue high priority in its relations with the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
(2001/C 261 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0190/01
by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(29 January 2001)
Subject: European Court judgment against Ireland of 21 September 1999 Case C-392/96
Would the Commission assure this Member of the European Parliament that the proposals put forward by the Irish authorities in response to the European Court judgment of 22 September 1999 will specifically ensure that appropriate testing will take place before any further consent is given for afforestation or reforestation in those areas of Ireland identified as acid-sensitive?
Extensive areas, particularly in the west and north-west, are characterised by rain-fed peat soils with high concentrations of organic acids where the geology is unable to absorb the effects of the increasing acid levels from afforestation. Other areas, particularly in the east, where catchments are dominated by quartz- bearing bedrock, with a shallow, carbonate-free soil overburden, areas with sandy, siliceous soils, and highly-weathered old leached soils are also vulnerable. Extensive Irish research over the last ten years has demonstrated that the acidification in these catchments promotes dissolved organic matter and dissolved aluminium which can occur in a toxic form, leading to a coating of mucus on the gills and extensive mortality.
The streams most severely affected by afforestation in these areas lack acid-sensitive invertebrates and are too acid to support self-sustaining populations of salmonoids, particularly as the research demonstrates that acid episodes tend to occur in winter and spring, a particularly vulnerable period in the salmonoid life-cycle. Sites with the most acid waters showed the lowest survival of salmon ova, and eggs developed abnormally brittle shells during incubation. Mayflies are absent from most acid sites in forests and these sites hold a lower diversity of invertebrates. Fish are entirely absent from sites otherwise suitable. All of this has been demonstrated by Irish research and subject to repeated per-group review, yet afforestation C 261 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
and reforestation continues unchecked in these areas as no assessment mechanism is in place. Will the Commission ensure that an appropriate assessment mechanism is specifically included in any revised Irish Environmental Impact Assessment procedure so as to protect these areas from this environmental damage?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(22 March 2001)
The Commission is aware of the issue of potentially significant impacts of afforestation projects on acid- sensitive areas in Ireland. It was amongst the issues raised by the Commission in its pleadings to the Court, and the Court specifically refers to it in paragraph 69 of its judgment, where it notes that afforestation may cause the acidification or eutrophication of waters.
To date, Ireland has not communicated the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in relation to afforestation projects, and the Commission has therefore sent a Letter of Formal Notice under Article 228 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
The Commission confirms that it will take into account the issue raised by the Honourable Member when examining any measures proposed by Ireland to satisfy the judgment.
(2001/C 261 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0194/01 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE), Armin Laschet (PPE-DE), Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE), Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) and Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(1 February 2001)
Subject: Restoration of international rail freight transport on the historical route of the Ijzeren Rijn line
1. When the possible reopening of the Ijzeren Rijn line is discussed, the Treaty of 1839 between the Netherlands and Belgium is often cited, which provides for the right of free transit. What is the relationship between the provisions of this Treaty and the relevant European legislation?
2. Would reopening of the Ijzeren Rijn line require an environmental impact assessment, despite the fact that the line already exists?
3. The line runs through areas which are protected pursuant to the Wild Birds and Habitat Directives. What are the consequences of this?
4. What is the Commission’s view of the existing line between Antwerp and the Ruhr (the stations Aachen West-Montzen and a new line via Venlo) as an alternative to reopening the Ijzeren Rijn line?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(19 April 2001)
In its answers to Written Questions E-2381/99 (1) and E-0525/00 by Mr Staes (2), the Commission pointed out that the treaty on Belgian-Dutch secession of 19 April 1839, and the resultant treaties are bilateral agreements concluded between two Member States and do not impinge upon Community law where they are not in breach of the treaties on European Union. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/61
As regards the possible revival of the Iron Rhine, the Commission feels that an environmental impact assessment must be carried out, as stated in paragraph 3 on the Answer Given to Written Question E-2381/99 pointing out that the Commission does not have to tell the Dutch Government to meet an obligation falling upon it under a non-Community treaty. The Dutch Government stated that Articles 6(3) and 4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3) should be applied since the former railway line crosses a special conservation area as defined by Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (4). This means that all of the special provisions of those articles must be complied with. Thus Article 6(4) stipulates that no plan or project can be carried through unless there is no other option. That provision thus enables a route other than the Rhine rail link to be adopted.
The matter of the existing link between Antwerp and Ruhr region in place of the Iron Rhine could not be considered until the parties concerned have drawn up their cost/benefit analysis which takes account of the environmental impact and of the relevant Community law.
(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000. (2) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001. (3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (4) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2001/C 261 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0199/01 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(1 February 2001)
Subject: Monitoring of uranium pollution in the Rivers Strymona and Nestos
In May 1998 the Commission replied to Question H-0438/98 (1) (’Question Time’) and confirmed reports about the pollution of the Greek Rivers Strymona and Nestos with uranium, adding that the pollution in question was caused not by the Bulgarian nuclear plant of Kozludoy, but by earlier uranium mining activities near these rivers.
Has the Commission been officially informed by the Greek authorities about the existence of an extensive and reliable network for measuring uranium pollution in these rivers, what are the findings of recent tests concerning uranium levels in the waters of these rivers and what is the precise origin of this pollution?
(1) Written answer of 12.05.1998.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(6 April 2001)
Member States are required to communicate information periodically on the monitoring of the level of radioactivity in the air, water and soil so that the Commission is kept informed of the level of radioactivity to which the public is exposed (Article 36, Chapter III, Health and Safety of the Euratom Treaty).
Commission Recommendation (2000/473/Euratom) on the application of Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty was adopted on 8 June 2000 (1). It requires Member States to monitor surface waters for Cs-137 and residual beta activity. For drinking water, specific monitoring for natural radionuclides should be carried out in compliance with Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (2). C 261 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
All environmental radioactivity data in the Community are stored in the REM database of the Joint Research Centre in Ispra. On the basis of this information the Commission regularly publishes an overview of the information at Community level.
The Commission has received under Article 36 data on beta activity for the rivers Nestos and Strymona in Greece. In view of the delay for official transmission of such data, the Greek authorities were invited to provide the most recent information. The Commission received monthly data for the period 1996-2000, thus confirming the continuity and comprehensiveness of the monitoring programme.
The monitoring results are given as total beta activity per unit volume (K-40 activity still needs to be subtracted), but do not seem to indicate unusually high levels. The rivers Strymona and Nestos are understood to flow in the vicinity of Bulgarian uranium mining areas. While there seems to have been no uranium production in Bulgaria since 1995, it cannot be excluded that the residues of past uranium mining still contribute to levels of natural radionuclides in these rivers.
(1) OJ L 191, 27.7.2000. (2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.
(2001/C 261 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0200/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(1 February 2001)
Subject: Contracts to supply natural gas from third countries
Most EU Member States have signed contracts for the supply of natural gas from third countries which contain a take-or-pay clause. The effect of such clauses is to create prohibitive conditions for the entry of new suppliers of fresh sources of natural gas into the deregulated energy market in Europe and frequently to strengthen the dominant position of suppliers of natural gas. Are the above clauses compatible with the rules of competition in the European Union? Does the Commission intend to take any action in this area? If so, what action?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(27 March 2001)
The Commission would first like to point out that contracts for the supply of natural gas from third countries are usually signed by companies, rather than by the Member States themselves. However, it is true that the role of the public authorities in this sector was often quite important prior to liberalisation. The take-or-pay clauses contained in a number of these contracts oblige the purchaser to pay for annual quantities of gas, whether or not they are actually taken up. However, in several cases, the take-or-pay obligation does not cover the full annual quantity contained in the contract and the price to be paid sometimes represents a variable percentage of the contract price. In addition, make-up and carry-forward clauses introduce a certain degree of flexibility in the gas charges to be paid.
The Community has already given its view of take-or-pay clauses in recital 30 to Parliament and Council Directive 98/30/EC of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (the Gas Directive). (1) It recognised that ‘long-term take-or-pay contracts are a market reality for securing Member States’ gas supply’. Furthermore, under Community law, a company experiencing serious economic and financial difficulties because of its take-or-pay commitments may be granted a temporary derogation from the principle of providing access to the system for third parties, a key element of the process of liberalising the internal market for natural gas, which is the purpose of the Directive (see 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/63
Article 25). However, the Directive specifies, also in recital 30, that any take-or-pay contracts entered into or renewed after its entry into force should be concluded prudently ‘in order not to hamper a significant opening of the market’. Moreover, Article 25(3) sets very strict criteria that are to be taken into account when granting temporary derogations, the first of which is ‘the objective to achieve a competitive gas market’.
As for the risk, highlighted by the Honourable Member, that the existence of take-or-pay clauses may prevent new suppliers from entering the European energy market, an exclusion effect would be likely to arise, rather than from take-or-pay clauses, from other clauses such as non-competition obligations, the duration of the supply contracts, or contracts reserving transportation capacity. However, such clauses cannot be considered to be intrinsically anti-competitive. Their potential anti-competitive effects must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking account in particular of the market power of the companies concerned and thus the degree of competition present on the relevant product market. If such clauses served to ensure that the supplier covered any new investments made in order to ensure supply, they could qualify for an exemption under Article 81(3) (formerly Article 85) of the EC Treaty.
In any event, the Commission is monitoring very closely the European gas sector as it moves towards an integrated and competitive market. In particular, the Directorate-General for Competition has instituted own-initiative proceedings in respect of clauses likely to restrict competition contained in certain contracts for the importation of natural gas. Since the investigation has not yet been completed, it would be inappropriate to provide further details at this stage.
(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
(2001/C 261 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0202/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(2 February 2001)
Subject: VAT rates on the repair of churches
Are any Member States currently applying a reduced rate of VAT on repairs/maintenance to buildings used as places of worship? If so, under what provisions is this taking place?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(19 March 2001)
According to the information available to the Commission, the only Member State currently applying a reduced rate of VAT on repairs/maintenance to buildings used as places of worship is Ireland.
Ireland applies a rate of 12,5 % to these services in accordance with Article 28(2)(e) of the sixth VAT Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1). This Article permits Member States that on 1 January 1991 applied a reduced rate to goods and services not listed in Annex H of the sixthVAT Directive, to continue to apply a reduced rate of not less than 12 % during the transitional period.
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, Directive as last amended by Council Directive 2001/41/EC of 19 January 2001 (OJ L 22, 24.1.2001). C 261 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0217/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(5 February 2001)
Subject: Moves by the Greek Telecommunications Organisation (OTE) to hinder the process of the deregulation of the market
In accordance with Commission Decision 97/607/EC (1) the Greek Government was obliged to undertake the full deregulation of the telecommunications market in Greece by 31 December 2000. However, free competition has only been secured in very few sectors of this market, and there is abundant evidence to suggest that the OTE is being obstructive, a point which is made in the 6th Report on the Implementation of Deregulation of Telecommunications.
Specifically, as regards the obligation to provide free access to local telecommunications networks to private individuals (unblocking access to the local loop), in accordance with Regulation (EC) 2887/2000 (2), this has not been possible, owing to the refusal by the OTE to cooperate constructively and to honour its commitments. Furthermore, it has so far refused to provide collocation, which is indispensable both for unblocking the local loop and for interconnection.
As far as the national numbering system is concerned, the OTE is openly dragging its feet, so that a delay of many months is to be expected in this sector too. Finally Presidential Decree 181/99, implementing Directive 98/10/EC (3) provides for a minimum period of time of two months before the charges set by the providers of voice telephony services for their subscribers may be changed, but through a subsequent amendment to a law relating to EVDAP (Athens water supply and sewage company), an amendment which is concerned exclusively with the OTE and is based on its status as a monopoly which it enjoyed until 31.12.2000, the OTE is seeking to impose non-refundable charges in this sector twenty (20) days after publication.
Giving that Commission Decision 97/607/EC was issued with the purpose of preparing the OTE for deregulation, but that the latter seems neither to have made the necessary changes or to have any intention of doing so, will the Commission say:
1. Is it aware of all the above and, if so, what explanations has the Greek Government given it?
2. What action and/or sanctions does it intend to take in view of the OTE’s failure to meet its obligations under EU law?
(1) OJ L 245, 9.9.1997, p. 6. (2) OJ L 336, 30.12.2000, p. 4. (3) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 24.
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(9 April 2001)
1. The Commission is aware of a number of developments in Greece following full liberalisation from 1 January 2001, in particular in relation to unbundling of the local loop, the adoption of the national numbering plan, and tariffs.
Unbundling of the local loop is one of the measures identified by the Heads of State and Government in Lisbon in March 2000 as being crucial in ensuring greater competition in the access network, and in this context the Commission is following the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on unbundled access to the local loop, in all Member States very closely. That instrument, by virtue of having been adopted in the form of a regulation, is directly applicable to all Member States. Rights and obligations arising under the Regulation are therefore capable of being enforced directly through national regulatory authorities or before national courts. As regards implementation of the Regulation in Greece, the Commission understands that, so far, interest in obtaining access has been expressed by two companies. The incumbent operator claims to have started 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/65
investigating their requests. No formal request has been made. The Greek Telecommunications Organiza- tion (OTE) submitted a draft Reference Unbundling Offer to the national regulatory authority (EETT), as required under the Regulation, in January 2001. With regard to collocation and related pricing issues, the Commission has drawn attention, most particularly in the 6th Implementation Report (1), to the crucial need for regulators to follow developments closely. The Commission will bring infringement proceedings in the event of failure to enforce rights and obligations at national level.
The Commission also drew attention in the 6th Implementation Report to the lack of a National Numbering Plan (NNP) in Greece. In December 2000, Greece adopted Law 2867/2000, which transferred the power to the EETT, to adopt a numbering plan. The Commission is informed that, on 29 January 2001, EETT adopted the NNP, which was published in Official Gazette 127B of 8 February 2001. The EETT’s Decision concerning the management and allocation of numbers was published in Official Gazette 159B on 16 February 2001. The Commission will of course follow the application of the NNP in practice.
In relation to tariffs, Presidential Decree (PD) 181/1999 has been notified to the Commission as the national measure transposing Directive 98/10/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment. Article 17 paragraph 5 of the Directive provides that tariff changes shall be implemented only after an appropriate public notice period, set by the national regulatory authority, has been observed. Article 16 paragraph 5 of the PD transposing that Article provides that changes in tariffs should be applied following a two-month notification period. The Commission has not been informed of an amendment of the PD. The Commission will of course bring infringement proceedings if the requirements of the Directive are not fulfilled in practice.
2. It is in the first instance the responsibility of the national regulatory authority to ensure that OTE fulfils its obligations under the national measures transposing the directives making up the telecommuni- cations regulatory package or, in the case of the unbundling of the local loop, under the directly applicable provisions set out in the Regulation. The Commission will, as indicated above, bring infringement proceedings in all cases where such obligations are not enforced in practice.
In addition, on the basis of its competition powers, the Commission carefully monitors the conditions of unbundling and the deployment of high speed broadband services, in particular in the framework of a sector enquiry launched in July 2000 across the Community.
(1) COM(2000) 814 final.
(2001/C 261 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0220/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(5 February 2001)
Subject: Planning of the Daskalovo-Kulata motorway section through the Kresna gorge nature conservation area in Bulgaria
Referring to the answer given by Mrs Wallström to written question E-3147/00 (1) I would like to submit the following further requests of clarification:
Since the start of the preparations of the feasibility study by the Italian company SPEA Ingegneria Europea on 9 March 2000, financed within the Phare CBC facility, the public has neither been involved in nor officially informed by the respective Bulgarian authorities (Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works MRDPW, and the CBC implementing agency General Road Administration) about plans concerning the construction of this motorway section. The feasibility study has thus been drawn up and submitted to the Bulgarian Government and the Commission disregarding the public participation C 261 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
procedures as outlined in Articles 6 and 7 of the Aarhus Convention, of which Bulgaria is signatory, and at variance with the partnership principle which is required for programming and implementation proce- dures in the framework of the EU’s social and economic cohesion policy, and which Bulgaria is supposed to transpose in view of its accession to the EU.
1. Is the Commission aware of the serious lack of public participation and information during the planning procedure for the Daskalovo-Kulata motorway section (part of the Trans-European Corridor No 4)?
2. How does the Commission under these conditions intend to ensure that the less damaging route for the environment is used, and that alternative solutions to the one through the Kresna gorge are properly taken into account and their environmental impact evaluated, given in particular that Bulgaria has not yet fully transposed the EC requirements on environmental impact assessments, though they are part of the short-term priorities outlined in the Accession Partnership 1999 with Bulgaria?
3. Has the Commission officially informed the CBC implementation agency about its concerns as expressed in its answer to question E-3147/00, which have been the terms of reference for the implementation of the CBC project E-79 by SPEA, and is the draft feasibility study submitted to the Bulgarian Government and the European Commission now available for the public and for public participation?
(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 20.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(19 April 2001)
1. The Commission is aware that public participation in the planning procedure of the Sofia-Kulata motorway has been quite weak. The Commission has expressed its concerns about this project in various meetings held in recent months with representatives of the Bulgarian authorities and with representatives of Bulgarian non-governmental organisations (NGOs). During these meetings the Commission has repeatedly stressed that it will only accept to finance projects under the pre-accession instruments that comply with the Community environmental acquis. Moreover, the importance of involving the public and the civil society at a very early stage in such important construction projects has been emphasised.
2. The Commission has already indicated that it will closely follow the planning of the Struma motorway, in order to ensure, to the extent possible, that the least damaging route for the environment is used, and that an alternative solution to the one that is presently planned would be chosen, if necessary. The Commission has already evaluated a first version of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Struma Motorway project, and it has indicated that it has to be completed and deepened in order to comply with standards similar to those included in the EIA Directive (1). The Commission has specifically indicated that alternative solutions to the one that passes through the Kresna Gorge have to be thoroughly and seriously studied. The Commission will then evaluate the amended version of the EIA report and express its opinion on it.
As regards the transposition and the implementation of the EIA Directive in Bulgaria, the Commission has been informed that the full transposition will be reached with the adoption of the new Environment Protection Act that is presently in the second reading stage in the National Assembly of Bulgaria. In particular this Act will address the current gaps in Bulgarian EIA legislation relating to, inter alia, public participation. Within six months of the adoption of the new Environment Protection Act, the Ministry of Environment and Water of Bulgaria has to adopt some implementing regulations on procedural issues of the EIA. Once these regulations are in place, the implementation of the EIA Directive in Bulgaria should be complete. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/67
3. The Commission is following the issues related to the project of the Struma Motorway very closely. It is in regular contact with the Ministry of Environment and Water, the Ministry of Transport and the Cross- border co-operation (CBC) implementation agency with regard to this project. Both Ministries and the CBC implementation agency have been informed of the position of the Commission and of the content of the answer to written question E-3147/00 by Mr Meijer (2). The Commission plans to officially transmit the content of the anwer to written question E-3147/00 to both Ministries and to the CBC implementation agency. Once the EIA report is finalised it will be made public.
(1) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 73, 14.3.1997). (2) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 20.
(2001/C 261 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0224/01 by Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo (PPE-DE) to the Council
(1 February 2001)
Subject: Economy class syndrome
There have been frequent media reports concerning what is known as ‘economy class syndrome’. Yet it would seem that there are far more deaths from this syndrome than the media reports would suggest.
The syndrome consists of the formation of blood clots in the legs or hips during flights longer than two hours. Because passengers are immobile, these clots can reach the brain and cause death.
In view of the importance of this issue and the possibility of taking preventive measures to reduce the risk, will the Council say whether it plans to take any action to ensure that European airlines take preventive measures to reduce the health risk to travellers posed by economy class syndrome?
Reply
(30 May 2001)
The Council has not received any proposal from the Commission regarding this subject but, upon receipt, will give it its utmost consideration.
(2001/C 261 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0225/01 by Rosemarie Müller (PSE) to the Commission
(29 January 2001)
Subject: Build-up of resistance resulting from excessive use of antibiotics in farming
Recently there have been reports in the media that antibiotics (in particular azoles) which are used on a large scale in farming can very easily cause a build-up of resistance which could jeopardise the effect of antibiotics used for treating humans.
1. Does the accelerated build-up of resistance resulting from the use of antibiotics in farming jeopardise the effect of antibiotics used for treating humans?
2. Would it be possible to reduce substantially the use of antibiotics in farming?
3. Does the Commission feel there is a need for legislation in this respect? C 261 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Antibiotic resistance is a complex issue that requires co-ordinated actions to be taken in a number of both legislative and non-legislative fields concerning human medicine, animal welfare, health and nutrition and plant health.
Inappropriate use of antibiotics including in farmed animals can contribute to increased or accelerated resistance in pathogenic bacteria for humans. For this reason all antibiotics which are or may be used as human or veterinary medicine for therapeutical purposes have been banned for use as growth promoters.
Implementation of prudent use policies and guidelines for therapy to ensure rational usage of antimicro- bials is widely stimulated by competent bodies, including the Community, the ‘Office international des épizooties’ (OIE), World Health Organisation (WHO) and national authorities. Resistance monitoring programmes are being implemented to study and guide the effect of these policies.
In line with the conclusions of the opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) on microbial resistance of 28 May 1999 the Commission is of the opinion that further reduction in the use of antibiotics in human medicine, veterinary medicine, animal production and plant protection should be possible. Indeed in some sectors improved hygiene conditions and development of new vaccines have already contributed to the reduction of their need.
Actions to address the antibiotic resistance issue should form part of a more comprehensive strategy. A Commission communication on such a strategy will be presented later this year.
The strategy will refer to possible proposals for new legislation, for example, to phase out those antibiotics still authorised as growth promoters in farm animals. This phase out process must be planned and co- ordinated since precipitous actions could have repercussions for animal health. At the same time it is a prerequisite for the replacement of the antibiotics that alternatives are available thus avoiding possible overprescription and illegal uses as well as environmental problems by using inappropriate substitutes.
This proposal is being considered for presentation this year.
(2001/C 261 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0227/01 by Rosemarie Müller (PSE) to the Commission
(5 February 2001)
Subject: Freedom of movement for the disabled
Disabled persons’ organisations complain that because of administrative hurdles disabled persons have great difficulty in exercising their right to freedom of movement and freedom to choose their place of work within the EU. In particular, when disabled persons return to their country of origin there are problems because the social service benefits, previously paid in the country of origin and suspended for the duration of the period of residence abroad, can only be taken up again after laborious fresh application procedures.
1. Is the Commission aware of such legal and administrative hurdles making it difficult for disabled persons to exercise their right of freedom of movement?
2. Does the Commission see any way of removing these obstacles?
3. Does the Commission have any plans for legislation to do away with such problems and, if so, when can a legislative proposal be expected? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/69
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(21 March 2001)
The Commission has not received any complaint concerning legal and administrative hurdles making it difficult for disabled persons to exercise their right to freedom of movement or their freedom to choose their place of work within the Community.
If the Honourable Member has information about any specific cases, she is invited to forward it to the Commission. This would enable an investigation to be carried out to see if any infringement of Community-law has occurred and, if so, to decide what measures should be taken.
(2001/C 261 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0236/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(8 February 2001)
Subject: Continuing failure to clarify deaths of inhabitants of Kosovar village of Racak
1. Does the Council recall my Written Question No E-0628/00 (1) of 2 March 2000 on the deaths on 15 January 1999 of 45 men belonging to the Albanian community in the village of Racak in Kosovo, and its answer of 8 June 2000?
2. Was the full report by the Finnish forensic team of 21 June 2000 handed over to the General Council and the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY)?
3. What, according to the report, is the exact number of victims, and what were the circumstances of their deaths?
4. Is the report in the public domain? If not, why not? Is the Council prepared to make the report available to Members of the European Parliament?
5. Has the recommendation made by Dr Helena Ranta in March 1999, that there should first be a thorough police investigation to give an overall picture of what happened in Racak, been followed up
6. Has the ICTY now opened a criminal investigation?
7. Does the Council endorse the findings of the report referred to in paragraph 2 above?
8. How, when and by whom does the Council expect the complete truth about what happened in Racak to be conclusively established?
(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 72.
Reply
(31 May 2001)
The Council certainly recalls its reply of 8 June 2000 to a previous question on the issue and is ready to update the Honourable Member on the issue.
At the end of the month of June 2000, the Finnish forensic team completed its work and as agreed with the Council handed over directly to the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) a full and detailed report of its findings. The forensic team has briefed the Council by presenting an ‘Executive Summary’ (annex). This document has been recently declassified, following advice by ICTY and Dr Helena Ranta, who had lead the EU forensic team to Yugoslavia. On the same occasion both Dr Ranta and the office of ICTY Prosecutor made it clear that due to ongoing investigations, the content of the final report which is not in the hands of the Council should not be disclosed. C 261 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
The Council agrees with these views and does not see fit to comment further.
As for the last question of the Honourable Member, it is clear that the complete truth about what happened in Racak will be established, by ICTY, after careful investigation and on the basis of all elements at its disposal, including the forensic expert’s report. Only ICTY can judge the circumstances of and responsibility for this atrocious episode of recent European history.
(2001/C 261 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0238/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(7 February 2001)
Subject: Exotic animal species: closure of Netherlands borders to imports from outside Europe
1. Is the Commission aware of the growing demand for monkeys, large parrots, song birds, iguanas, tortoises, snakes and salt-water fishes from outside Europe by persons intending to keep such animals as household pets?
2. Is the Commission aware that the KLM airline has refused, since the shredding of 440 striped Chinese squirrels in 1999, to transport any more exotic species, and that this is one of the reasons why the ‘Aeroground Services’ firm based at Schiphol airport went out of business on 1 January 2001.
3. Is the Commission further aware that the Netherlands government department responsible for testing livestock and meat products ceased, as of 2001, to monitor animal welfare and the spread of diseases, but is responsible for the temporary reception of animals and their return to a destination outside the European Union at the importers’ expense?
4. Is it true, as claimed by the Netherlands ‘Dibevo’ animal trading organisation that European rules require Member States each to operate at least one testing centre for their home territory, and does the Netherlands no longer comply with that requirement now that intercontinental access via Schiphol has been discontinued, although the external-boundary inspection centre at the Maastricht-Aachen regional airport is being maintained?
5. Has the Commission now received a request from the Netherlands government for a procedure to be initiated withdrawing recognition of Schiphol as an external-boundary inspection centre for the purpose of importing exotic species?
(2001/C 261 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0239/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(7 February 2001)
Subject: Exotic animal species: inadvertent increase in transport time and higher death rate
1. Is the Commission familiar with reports to the effect that action by the Netherlands government aimed at saving exotic animals from poor survival prospects during transportation and intolerable living conditions thereafter can easily be evaded because no customs inspections are carried out at internal borders?
2. How does the Commission assess the report than Netherlands animal dealers are now importing exotic species through the Brussels and Frankfurt airports and then further transporting them over land, with the result that the animals have to be overloaded, the journey now takes twice as long, and many more animals are dying during transportation than hitherto? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/71
3. Have more or less stringent requirements been imposed in practice on the trade in and admission of exotic species in the other 14 European Union Member States than in the Netherlands to the end of 2000? Are there important differences between Member States in the matter of transportation, inspection and admission as domestic pets?
4. How many of the 280 external-border inspection centres in the European Union Member States are empowered to investigate and authorise the importing of exotic species?
5. Is the Commission aware of ways and means whereby the practice of combining lawful imports into one Member State with forwarding free of checks to another could be restricted? What arrangements already exist in that connection?
(2001/C 261 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0240/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(7 February 2001)
Subject: Exotic animal species: removing animals unsuitable as domestic pets from the European market
1. Can the European Commission produce figures confirming that imports of exotic animal species have risen in recent years? Which Member States are major players in this growing import trade, and which display a low or even a falling trend in such imports?
2. Does the Commission agree that the practice of keeping exotic animals as pets must not only be controlled but must also be firmly discouraged, both because such animals face poor survival prospects in what is for them an unnatural environment, and because some such animals living in captivity pose a threat to humans and other animals in the vicinity if they manage to escape?
3. Is the Commission aware of any effective means whereby the national authorities in the Member States could prevent the entry of exotic animal species without coming into conflict with existing European Union rules? What options are available to the Commission and which ones does it rule out?
4. Will the Commission act to ensure that imports of exotic animals other than for delivery to zoos or for use in scientific research will be intercepted at the European Union’s external borders or be made subject to stringent restrictions?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0238/01, E-0239/01 and E-0240/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(19 April 2001)
The introduction into the Community of endangered species of wild fauna and flora is subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 939/97 (2) on the implementation of the Council Regulation.
Under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 Member States have indicated places of introduction into and export from the Community (3).
The Dutch authorities have indicated the following places of introduction and export of live animals covered by this Regulation:
Schiphol-Gebouw Cargocentre, Handelskade 130;
Schiphol-Gebouw WTC, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol; C 261 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Maastricht-Aachen Airport Passagiersafhandeling;
Maastricht-Aachen Airport Vrachtafhandeling.
The Commission has no indication of changes to the above list in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 338/97.
Imports of all live animals and animal products are only permitted at border inspection posts that have been approved by the Commission and listed in the official journal. The procedures and import conditions for such imports are harmonised under various Directives and implementing rules. Import rules for live animal species not covered by a specific Directive fall under the Balai Directive 92/65/EC (4). The Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office makes inspections of all border inspection posts in the Community to verify both the actual facilities and the procedures that are operated there.
The Commission is aware of the refusal of KLM and some other European airlines to transport live wild animals and it shares the concerns about the welfare of live animals caused by these restrictions. The Commission supports the transport of live animals by airlines which respect International Air Transport Association (IATA) norms established for the transport of such specimens.
Increasing volumes of trade in wild pet species can partly be explained by more complete trade reporting by Member States over the past few years. For detailed information on these trade volumes the Commission refers the Honourable Member to the Community annual report to CITES established under Article 15 4 a) and b) of the Council Regulation. It should also be pointed out that under the above Community Regulations, trade is strictly monitored at Community level and import restrictions can be put in place when and where necessary. As a result, the trade permitted under this Regulation complies with the principle of sustainable use of wildlife, providing socio-economic incentives for developing countries to enhance conservation of endangered species.
With regard to the survival prospects of exotic pet animals, it should be noted that in many cases the natural life span of a wild specimen may well be much shorter than that of the captive specimen of the same species, as the latter is not exposed to predators and other dangers resulting from life in nature. Under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 the authorities of the Member States have the responsibility for ensuring that pet traders provide buyers of wild pet animals with information about how to take care of the animals. Finally, Regulation (EC) No 338/97 allows for import restrictions on specimens of species which have a high mortality rate during shipment or for which it has been established that they are unlikely to survive well in captivity (Article 4 6 c)). A certain number of import restrictions taken on this basis are in place and published in a Commission Regulation (5).
As a result of the Single Market, internal border controls have been abolished and stricter trade control measures have been adopted at the Community’s external borders. Stricter trade measures by individual Member States are not possible under the Council Regulation. However, Member States have the option of adopting stricter measures with regard to the prohibition of possession of certain animals. It is the Commission’s opinion however that the existing Community Regulations on trade in wildlife give the appropriate tools for the conservation and the protection of species of wild fauna and flora.
(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997. (2) OJ L 140, 30.5.1997. (3) Commission Communication OJ C 356, 8.12.1999. (4) Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (OJ L 268, 14.9.1992). (5) OJ L 29, 30.1.2001. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/73
(2001/C 261 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0245/01 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(31 January 2001)
Subject: Babcock Wilson España
On 13 June 2000 the Commission issued a press release stating that it was extending the existing investigation on aid to Babcock Wilson España SA to include the aid elements involved in its privatisation. Bearing in mind that the Basque Government has not been informed of this and that there is considerable alarm among workers (a large number of jobs are threatened) can the Commission say what stage has been reached in the investigations?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(16 March 2001)
On 13 June 2000 the Commission decided to extend for the second time the Article 88 (ex Article 93)(2) of the EC Treaty procedure No C 33/98 to include under the existing investigation the aid elements identified in the arrangements for the privatisation of Babcock Wilcox Española S.A. notified by the Spanish authorities. The investigation had been opened in 1998 (1) and then extended for the first time in 1999 (2).
Following this latest extension of the procedure, the Commission published its decision on the Official Journal (3). This publication had for objective to give third interested parties the opportunity to submit their comments to the Commission. As a third interested party, the Government of the region where Babcock Wilcox is located, the Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, has submitted its observations. They will be taken into account when the Commission adopts its final decision in this case.
The investigation is currently in its last phase of assessment. In view of the time constraints imposed by the privatisation process, the Commission will try to speed up procedures with a view to adopting a final decision as soon as possible.
(1) OJ C 249, 8.8.1998. (2) OJ C 280, 2.10.1999. (3) OJ C 232, 12.8.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0249/01 by Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(8 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 Commission 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? C 261 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(6 April 2001)
The Commission has proposed to Parliament and Council to adopt common requirements on commercial operations by aeroplanes within the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (1). The proposal (2) concerned has been discussed by the Parliament, which adopted its position at first reading on 18 January 2001.
The requirements specify that air operators are responsible for the safety of the aeroplane and its occupants. With regard to the drunkenness of passengers, air operators are required to ensure no passenger is on board who is under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the safety of the aeroplane or its occupants is likely to be endangered. (Paragraph OPS 1115 of Annex III of the Regulation).
The Commission considers that, within the constraints of these safety requirements, operators are free to serve alcoholic drinks to their passengers if they so wish, whether against payment or whether by courtesy. The health considerations linked to the consumption of alcohol are of course a matter for the individual. The Commission has no intention to propose legal measures in respect of the consumption of alcoholic drinks on board.
(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991. (2) OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0280/01
by Reimer Böge (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 February 2001)
Subject: Member States’ plans to carry out food and veterinary checks
Under Article 16 of Directive 89/662/EEC (1), the Member States are required to inform the Commission about their plans to carry out food and veterinary checks.
In its special report to the European Parliament of January 1998, the Commission notes that Member States have refused to inform the Commission of the number of inspectors and the type of checks.
At what intervals does the Commission now receive such information?
When (month and year) did the individual Member States supply the Commission with this information?
Has the Commission, on this basis, indicated to Member States that tighter or new checks are required, and if so, what was the substance of these indications?
Has the Commission, in the light of these reports or their absence, had its own checks carried out by the food and veterinary agency?
(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 13. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/75
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(25 April 2001)
The Commission adopted Commission Decision 98/470/EC (1) in response to difficulties to receive information from the Member States on programmes setting out the national measures to be taken to achieve the objectives of Directive 89/662/EEC (2) concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade. This Decision requires Member States to send information to the Commission on checks in the fresh meat sector on an annual basis by 1 May. The Member States had thus to report for the first time before May 1st 2000 for the year 1999, and they will have to report before 1 May 2001 for the year 2000.
Although the adoption of Decision 98/470/EEC has improved the situation, the Commission received for 1999 the results of seven Member States only as follows:
Netherlands: 20 April 2000,
Austria: 28 April 2000,
Denmark: 23 May 2000,
Finland: 9 June 2000,
Portugal: 16 May 2000 (with an update in December),
Germany: 8 May 2000,
Italy: 16 June 2000.
No response from other Member States was received as yet, in spite of reminders addressed to them.
The Commission appreciates that the reporting of results of national checks in the veterinary sector is not satisfactory. One of the reasons may be that in other sectors (residues in animal products under Directive 96/23/EC (3), official controls on foodstuffs under Directive 89/397/EEC (4), official controls on animal feed under Directive 95/53/EEC (5)) similar requests for reporting of control results exist, but since a longer time. This heterogeneous situation does not contribute to the creation of transparency. It is the intention of the Commission to better harmonise the different requirements on the communication of inspection and control results. This will be done in the framework of a proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on official feed and food controls. This action is announced in the Annex to the Commission’s White Paper on Food Safety (6). Such harmonisation will allow for a more accurate definition of what information is essential for evaluating the situation in the Member States, and it will guarantee a better follow-up of the situation by the Commission.
The Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) is responsible for carrying out inspections in Member States and third countries to monitor the implementation of Community legislation on food safety, animal health, animal welfare and plant health. In recent years, the FVO has conducted a range of inspections in all Member States in relation to most products covered by veterinary legislation. Reports of these inspections have been provided to the Parliament and have been made publicly available through the Internet.
In determining the priorities for the FVO’s inspection activities, the Commission takes into account a wide range of factors including information provided by the Member States on the operation of veterinary checks on intra-Community trade.
(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1998. (2) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989. (3) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996. (4) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989. (5) OJ L 265, 8.11.1995. (6) COM(2000) 716 final. C 261 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0285/01 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 February 2001)
Subject: Fuel tax in Greece
On 22 December 2000, Commissioner Bolkestein, replying on behalf of the Commission to my question to the Commission (E-3423/00) (1), was kind enough to provide detailed information on the tax in force for various liquid fuels in Greece, confirming that in certain cases (particularly with regard to fuel for industrial use) the Greek Government imposes a much higher rate of tax than the minimum provided for by the Commission.
In addition, I would like know what grounds the Commissioner has for his view that this high level of tax does not necessarily reduce the competitiveness of Greek industrial products, since it is a fact that Greece is the worst of the 15 EU countries in terms of competitiveness.
The Commissioner also rightly emphasises the complex nature of competitiveness, and as an example refers to the impact of the level of social security contributions. Can the Commission say whether the level of contributions in Greece is in fact the highest of the EU countries (with illustrative data for each of the 15 countries), what other factors contribute to the poor international competitiveness of Greek products and what changes should be made to bring about a drastic improvement in competitiveness? Finally, could the Commission say whether, in view of its low level of international competitiveness, Greece’s member- ship of EMU will have adverse effects, and if so, what these will be?
(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 52.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(9 April 2001)
The ‘Structure of the taxation system in the European Union, 2000 edition’ published by the Commission, gives social security contribution as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) for all 15 Member States. The annex presents the figures for years 1997 and 2000, which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
According to this measure, in comparison with the other Member States, Greece does not have the highest percentage.
With social security contributions representing 10,8 % of the GDP in 1997, Greece is underneath the European average, which is 15 %.
The international competitiveness of a small open economy like Greece’s is affected by several domestically generated factors including: the overall macroeconomic situation, the conditions prevailing in the product and labour markets, and the institutional and regulatory framework in place, which affects the business environment, and in particular the administrative burden on companies, the efficiency of the public administration and the system of corporate taxation.
In the run up to Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), Greece has made remarkable progress in correcting macroeconomic and fiscal imbalances. A number of structural reforms has also been introduced in recent years and their impact on the economy has been positive. A sign of the government’s commitment towards increased competitive market conditions is the recent decision to allow the sale of majority stakes in partially privatised public companies. A comprehensive tax reform is under preparation and steps are being taken to review the conditions for access to some service professions in order to increase competition. However, the remaining problems in several areas and the need to prepare for future challenges require an intensification of the reform efforts. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/77
In the labour market, the relatively high rate of unemployment suggests that the results of the reforms implemented so far have been modest and a bolder attitude is required, taking into account the remaining rigidities and the government’s objective to drastically improve the employment situation.
In the product markets, raising the still low productivity record requires the continuation of efforts for improving the functioning of the markets, increasing competitive market conditions and promoting the development of a knowledge-based society.
As an EMU member since 1 January 2001, Greece has no more monetary and exchange rate policy instruments at its disposal. On the other hand, economic operators should benefit from reduced monetary and exchange rate uncertainty and from lower interest rates implied by accession to the euro zone. Thus, in order to fully benefit from the opportunities offered by EMU participation, it is crucial that an optimal use is made of the other economic policy instruments available, namely appropriate fiscal, incomes and structural policies.
(2001/C 261 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0286/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(9 February 2001)
Subject: Counterfeiting of euro currency
What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that when the euro currency is introduced shopkeepers and traders have very clear guidance as to the nature of the new notes so as to avoid the possibility of counterfeiting? Is the Commission cooperating with the Member States in a programme to control the availability and exchange of black-market cash during the transition from national currencies to the euro?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(2 April 2001)
The European Central Bank (ECB), the national central banks, the Commission and the Member States are currently conducting communication campaigns with respect to the euro designed for the general public as much as for specific groups.
Particularly as of September 2001 the campaigns will focus on the characteristics of euro banknotes and coins, allowing users to recognise them correctly and avoid counterfeits.
For the overall protection of the euro banknotes and coins from counterfeiting, a high level of protection has been achieved. Security features correspond to the highest technical standards. Furthermore, the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (1), on which a political agreement was reached in Council on 12 February 2001, aims at establishing, in particular, procedures for exchanging information on counterfeits and counterfeiting and for cooperation involving the Member States, the Commission, the ECB and Europol.
In addition, the Commission is currently preparing a proposal for a training and assistance multi-annual programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting and legislative mesures for supervising cross-border transportation of cash -inter alia- in order to control availability and exchange of black- market cash. This proposal would aim, in particular, at strengthening legislation on controls and allowing the exchange of information. C 261 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Furthermore, the Commission proposed (2) an initiative to amend Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991, on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering (3), on which a common position was reached in Council on 30 November 2000. Most importantly, it will extend the obligations of the Directive, in particular customer identification and reporting of suspicions of money laundering, after its formal adoption by the Parliament and Council.
(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000. (2) OJ C 177 E, 27.6.2000. (3) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991.
(2001/C 261 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0291/01 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 February 2001)
Subject: Religious think tanks and the EU
The Catholic European Study and Information Centre (OCIPE) and COMECE (Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community) both contribute to the debate on the development of the EU.
Do they receive EC monies?
What is their mandate?
What activities do they undertake with EC grants?
Who runs them?
What is the policy of the Commission in encouraging church participation, or the participation of other religious groups, in the development of ever-closer union?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(4 April 2001)
A great variety of religious organisations, including the ones mentioned by the Honourable Member, may be eligible for small grants from Community funds, managed directly by the Commission. These are of two types: firstly there are subsidies to help cover the running costs of coordination and representation activities, at European level, of not-for-profit organisations; and secondly there are specific grants for individual projects.
In the case of the first type, the so-called coordinating Committee of ‘A Soul for Europe’ which regroups organisations like the ones mentioned by the Honourable Member, has regularly applied for and received a small subsidy to help with the running costs of its secretariat in the Ecumenical Centre in Brussels. In the case of the second type, many small grants are also made each year to organisations which propose projects and activities which contribute to the debate on the development of the Community, such as the organisation of conferences and seminars bringing together participants from several member state and candidate countries. Both the organisations mentioned have received grants for activities of this type.
As the Commission is concerned specifically with the activities to be supported, rather than the mandates and management of the organisations as such, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member directly to organisations themselves for precise information on these.
The policy of the Commission as regards the involvement of Churches in the development of ever-closer union is to recognise their importance both in their own right, and as conveyors of opinion about it. For these reasons the Commission maintains a permanent dialogue with them. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/79
(2001/C 261 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0293/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission
(9 February 2001)
Subject: Interreg III Community initiative
One of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament to the Decourrière report on Interreg III refers to the inclusion of the outermost regions in Interreg strand IIIA.
Despite being one of a number of modifications to which the Commission agreed, this amendment has not been incorporated into the final revised version of the Commission communication. This situation is causing problems for some governments in outermost regions seeking to submit cross-border projects the project involving the Canary Islands and their neighbouring regions in Africa being a case in point.
Will the Commission give its reasons for not reflecting all of Parliament’s amendments in its final communication and, where appropriate, state what action it intends to take on the proposals submitted by regional authorities in outermost regions for cross-border projects included in Interreg IIIA?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(5 April 2001)
Pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) and the conclusions of the Berlin European Council, the Commission paid close attention to the outermost regions in its communication laying down guidelines for the Interreg III Community Initiative (2).
These regions were recognised as a specific priority under strand B ‘transnational cooperation’ and their participation in the process of selecting operations under strand C ‘interregional cooperation’ is a priority.
The Commission was, however, unable to accept the request in Parliament’s Decourrière report that these areas should also be considered eligible under strand A ‘cross-border cooperation’ of Interreg III. This strand concerns cooperation between neighbouring areas on land borders and certain maritime regions. Extending eligibility for strand A to the outermost regions would have also increased the number of coastal continental areas, and therefore the population eligible under this strand, so diluting the content specifically related to cross-border cooperation and reducing the required concentration of Community financial resources.
During the 2000-2006 programming period, the Canary Islands are eligible under strand C of Interreg III as well as for three programmes under strand B, ‘Canaries-Azores-Madeira’, ‘South-west Europe’ and ‘Atlantic area’. The budgets for these three programmes are about € 145 million, € 66 million and € 119 million respectively.
In its communication, the Commission also stated that, under strand B, cooperation programmes involving the outermost regions will promote better economic integration and cooperation among these regions and between them and other Member States and improve linkages and cooperation with neighbouring countries, including North-west Africa. In this specific context, bilateral and cross-border cooperation similar to that under strand A of Interreg III remain possible.
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (2) OJ C 143, 23.5.2000. C 261 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0296/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission
(9 February 2001)
Subject: Implementation of regional policy in the Canary Islands
What were the results of the implementation of EU regional policy in the Canary Islands, an outermost region of the Union, in the period 1994-1999, broken down by sphere, subject matter and budgetary allocation?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(18 April 2001)
During the last programming period 1994-1999 for the structural funds, and 1993-1999 for the Cohesion Fund, the Canary Islands benefited from a total of € 1 585,4 million broken down as follows:
European Regional Development Fund: € 811,2 million
European Social Fund: € 192,6 million
European Agricultural Fund (Guidance): € 87,6 million
Community initiatives: € 230,8 million
Cohesion Fund: € 263,2 million
In addition, the Canary Islands benefited from an estimated € 530 million in Community assistance under multiregional programmes run by the central ministries in Spain.
As demonstrated in the mid-term evaluation of the regional structural fund programmes, these significant financial transfers have had a beneficial impact on the Islands’ economy and particularly on endowments regarding economic and social infrastructure.
The statistical evidence points to a general improvement in the economic situation.
Projects for which financial commitments were made during the period 1994-1999 are still being completed so that payments can be made. It is only when the payments regarding these projects have been made for which the deadline is the end of 2001 that the Commission services will be able to undertake a full impact evaluation. Accordingly, this work will begin in 2002.
(2001/C 261 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0297/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission
(9 February 2001)
Subject: Inclusion of seaports in the Canary Islands in trans-European transport networks
Will the Commission say whether all seaports located in the Canary Islands, an outermost region of the European Union, have indeed been included in the trans-European transport networks and, if so, whether they been added to the list of transport infrastructure projects selected by the Essen European Council? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/81
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (9 April 2001)
Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 establishes Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (1), which identify projects of common interest. An amending Decision as regards seaports and inland ports as well as project No 8 in Annex III is being examined by the Parliament and the Council. The Conciliation Committee adopted a common draft at its meeting on 13 March 2001.
The amended text defines the categories of ports included in the network, as well as the general conditions and specifications for projects of common interest concerning seaports in the network. Hence, any port- related project of common interest complying with these conditions and specifications is suitable for financing under the trans-European transport network funds.
Under the amended text, all ports located in the Canary islands, would become part of the trans-European transport network, if they interconnect islands, peripheral or outermost regions by sea and/or connect them with the central regions of the Community. Fishing ports and marinas are excluded from this consideration.
With regard to the priority Essen projects concerning Spain, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the priority project No 8 ‘Multimodal link Portugal/Spain-Europe’ includes in fact port areas, but the territory of the Canary islands is not covered by this project.
(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
(2001/C 261 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0298/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council (14 February 2001)
Subject: VAT increase in the tourism industry
It is being reported in financial circles that certain Scandinavian Member States are putting pressure on the Commission to induce Spain to raise the rate of VAT it levies on the tourism industry to 16 %, the aim being to harmonise taxation and thus avoid tax competition.
Will the Council say whether such pressure is indeed being exerted?
Reply (31 May 2001)
The question raised by the Honourable Member is not within the Council’s sphere of competence.
(2001/C 261 E/085) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0300/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (13 February 2001)
Subject: Compliance with the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives during the organisation of the Olympic Games in Greece
Greece is planning to undertake infrastructure works at Skhinias in connection with the 2004 Olympic Games. This wetland area in the Bay of Marathon is covered by the Habitats and the Wild Birds Directives. Skhinias is a unique biotope with 176 species of bird, rare species of fish and an interesting flora including stone pines. C 261 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
A presidential decree recognises Skhinias as a natural park but leaves the way open for the construction of hotels, parking areas, taverns and other infrastructure. The use of pesticides is also permitted. The Minister for the Environment and Employment, Kostas Laliotis, wishes to construct a hotel and excavate two concrete lakes two kilometres wide and two and a half kilometres long.
In Autumn 2000 the WWF protested to the Commission about the Greek infrastructure plans. If irreparable damage in Skhinias is to be prevented action must be taken quickly.
1. Has the Commission pointed out to the Greek government that the planned infrastructure works will cause irreparable damage to the unique Skhinias wetland area and conflict with the Community’s Habitats and Wild Birds Directives? If so, has the Greek government agreed not to carry out the planned infrastructure works at Skhinias? If not, will the Commission again point out to the Greek government that the planned infrastructure operations conflict with the Community’s Habitats and Wild Birds Directives and should be halted?
2. Has the Commission blocked allocations from the Regional Funds for the 2004 Olympic Games given the incompatibility of the planned infrastructure works at Skhinias with the Community’s Wildlife and Habitats Directives? If not, is it still prepared to block such allocations for the 2004 Olympic Games given the incompatibility of the planned infrastructure works with the Community’s Habitats and Wild Birds Directives?
(2001/C 261 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0332/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 February 2001)
Subject: Measures to protect the Skhinia wetlands
In its reply to a question I had tabled (P-2323/00) (1) on the protection of the Skhinia wetlands within the framework of the objectives of Natura 2000, the Commission stated that the facilities which had been planned for Skhinia as part of the 2004 Olympic Games were the subject of a complaint to the Commission which would examine the matter within this framework.
Have the Commission’s investigations made any progress? Can it provide any information on the results so far?
(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 193.
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0300/01 and E-0332/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(19 April 2001)
As mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission has already registered a formal complaint related to the proposed construction of a canoeing and rowing centre in Skhinias. In the framework of the investigation of the case, the Commission has sent a letter to the Greek authorities drawing attention to the value of the site for nature conservation and requesting information concerning any intended designation of the site for the Natura 2000 network by virtue of the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). Commission officials discussed the case with the Greek authorities at a meeting in Athens on 13 and 14 December 2000. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/83
The Commission is currently investigating the file, taking into account the conservation value of the site, and the elements supplied by the Greek authorities in their reply. A clear position on this issue is expected very soon.
With regard to the question of funding, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the Greek authorities have not requested any Community financing for the above-mentioned project.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2001/C 261 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0304/01 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission
(2 February 2001)
Subject: Mont Blanc tunnel
It is planned to reopen the Mont Blanc road tunnel, one of the main routes through the Alps forming part of the trans-European network, during the second half of this year.
However, local inhabitants are concerned, based on predictions that goods traffic through the Alps will increase substantially in the coming years, that reopening the tunnel will cause serious damage to the environment, in breach of the Alpine Convention, which the European Union has ratified and to which a protocol on the sensitive issue of transport was added a few months ago.
Two options seem to be emerging, the first involving a total ban on heavy goods vehicles and the second a quota system, together with the safety measures for the tunnel made necessary in the wake of the review conducted following the accident.
What information is available on likely increases in goods traffic through the Alps in future years, and what are the Commission’s views on the transport protocol to the Alpine Convention and on the two possible options of banning heavy goods vehicles or introducing quotas for them?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(23 March 2001)
The Commission is fully aware of the environmental concerns over alpine corridors but notes that actions must be balanced to take into account economic needs. The Mont Blanc is one of the most crucial transit routes through the Alps. It is a good example showing that appropriate action is needed both on rail and road to protect the environment while ensuring the free movement of goods. The principle of free movement of goods does not allow for a total ban on heavy goods vehicles, even if the Commission fully recognises that the free movement of goods and sustainable transport have to go hand in hand. Neither can the Commission lend support to solutions that are ‘quota-based’, as Community legislation makes international carriage of goods by road conditional on the possession of a quota-free Community transport authorisation (1). Rather, the Commission has promoted in the past and will continue to promote, a series of coherent measures that aim at reducing the negative effects of road traffic throughout the Community. Such an ambitious goal can only be reached by a coherent package of complementary measures, including, inter alia, technical standards (improving environmental and safety requirements, notably in tunnels), infrastructure investments, pricing instruments (aligning transport charges with the real cost of transport in C 261 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
all modes) as well as measures to increase the efficiency of the transport system (especially by optimising intermodality) and strengthen the competitiveness of rail transport in general. The Commission is in particular committed to support the priority project between Lyon and Turino on the trans-European transport network and has already provided up to € 60 million for the project, which amounts to 50 % of the studies carried out so far. This future tunnel-based rail link will contribute to reducing road freight traffic in the Alps.
In the view of the Commission the transport protocol to the Alpine Convention provides a framework, based on the precautionary principle, the preventive principle and the polluter-pays principle, for ensuring sustainable mobility and protection of the environment, for all modes of transport, in the Alpine region. The Commission considers that by signing the Protocol on the Implementation of the Alpine Convention in the field of Transport, the Community would give an important political signal to all parties that signature and ratification of the Protocol should be a priority. That is why the Commission has recently made a proposal for a Council Decision on the signature of this Protocol (2).
Concerning statistics on freight traffic in the Alpine Arc, the average annual growth between 1993 and 1998 is estimated at 3,8 %. The Commission is aware of several forecasts that estimate the resulting annual freight traffic growth as varying from 2 % to 5 %, depending on the assumptions. This expected growth shows the necessity to make sure that the Lyon-Turino tunnel enters into operation as soon as possible.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 of 26 March 1992 on access to the market in the carriage of goods by road within the Community to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States (OJ L 95, 9.4.1992). (2) COM(2001) 18 final.
(2001/C 261 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0310/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 February 2001)
Subject: Construction of small dams and other irrigation projects in Greece
Can the Commission provide information on the extent to which, under the new Structural Funds regulations, measures for the creation of small dams, water reservoirs and other irrigation projects are considered eligible? How many proposals has it received from the Greek Government for such projects? If it has, in fact, received any proposals of this kind, how does it intend to proceed?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(4 April 2001)
The projects mentioned by the Honourable Member such as small dams, hill catchments and other projects to collect surface water for use in irrigation, as drinking water or for mixed use are eligible under the Structural Funds.
The concept of eligibility must, however, include the conformity of any project with objective and transparent selection criteria laid down in advance by the managing authority for each operational programme. These criteria will, as far as possible, be coordinated at the level of the Community support framework and will have to be met for each project part-financed. Moreover, before the end of the period 2000-2008 (programming period plus two years to settle payments), each project part-financed must demonstrate that it has made a specific contribution to the development of the Member State for it to preserve its eligibility. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/85
The operational programmes under the 2000-2006 Community support framework for Greece have not yet been approved and the projects are not therefore officially known yet. The Commission would point out in this connection that the choice of these projects is a matter for the Member States and that Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) does not provide for a separate application for each project.
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2001/C 261 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0311/01 by Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 February 2001)
Subject: Emergency caused by waste in Naples
For some days now eighty-one municipalities in the province of Naples, comprising one million inhabitants, have been involved in a major ‘waste emergency’. What has now became an environmental disaster was caused by the seizure, for safety reasons, of the Tufino dump in the Nola district, the only facility for disposing of 2 500 tonnes of waste every day. Refuse sacks lying in the streets, overflowing bins and the resulting stench clearly demonstrate the scale of the health and hygiene emergency.
The authority responsible for waste in Campania, which has been in an emergency situation for some time, has so far not produced positive results, in that the planned disposal plants have not been built, confirming and worsening Campania’s role as the ‘dustbin of Italy’.
1. Since this environmental ‘disaster’ threatens to jeopardise the population’s right to health and environmental protection, can the Commission give its general opinion on the matter;
2. in view of the fact that until now European intervention in the sphere of waste has mainly taken the form of legislation, can it simultaneously support measures to raise awareness and exchanges of good practice in order to improve the situation with regard to waste in the province of Naples;
3. since the system of differentiated collection does not operate in most of the communes in the province nor even in the city of Naples, does the Commission not consider this to be in conflict with the European directives on the collection and recycling of waste;
4. since Order No 3100 of the Ministry of the Interior, published in the Official Gazette of 4 January 2001, transfers all powers for the management of solid urban waste from mayors to the Government ministerial representative, making provision, where necessary, for the creation of special commissioners with executive powers, does the Commission not consider that such a provision clearly conflicts with the principle of subsidiarity;
5. finally, in view of the fact that in the Campania region, as in the rest of Italy, almost 50 % of the waste produced bypasses the lawful market every year and supplies the parallel market managed by the ‘eco-Mafia’, can the Commission suggest the most appropriate strategy for tackling the problem?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(4 April 2001)
Under Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (1) as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 on waste (2) Member States have the obligation to ensure that waste is disposed of or recovered without endangering human health and without harming the environment. The Directive further obliges Member States to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations. To achieve these objectives waste management plans are to be drawn up relating in particular to the type, quantity C 261 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
and origin of waste, general technical requirements, any special arrangements for particular wastes and suitable disposal sites or installations.
According to the information made available to the Commission, the Campania region adopted a new waste management plan in the year 1997. An objective of 35 % separate collection to be achieved by 1999 was set, but apparently this was not achieved. The Commission is very concerned about this situation.
Aside from proposing legislative measures, the Commission has taken several measures to raise awareness and exchanges of good practice. In the framework of the LIFE Programme, innovative projects for the improvement of separate collection and recycling of waste can be funded. Several specific workshops in order to exchange information on best practices were organized, including a workshop in Sorrento in 1996 dedicated mostly to the situation in Campania. The Commission published a manual on good practices in the field of separate collection and composting (3), destined especially for the south of Europe, where composting has very high potentials. In this context, a very useful manual has also been produced by the Italian National Agency for the Protection of the Environment (4).
Separate collection is required at present for waste oils according to Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (5), for packaging waste to the extent that the targets of Directive 94/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994, on packaging and packaging waste (6) are to be achieved and for batteries covered by Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991, on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances (7). Separate collection is also one of the objectives of the Commission proposal for waste from electrical and electronic equipment (8) as well as of the initiative, currently under preparation by the Commission, on biodegradable waste.
The lack of separate collection schemes for packaging, oils and batteries may therefore lead to obligations of Community legislation not being complied with.
Community legislation requires Member States to designate competent authorities for the implementation of its provisions. It is however up to the Member States to decide how to organise this. Therefore the Commission is not competent for taking a position on the allocation of competences within Member States.
Community legislation gives Member States the instruments to tackle the problem of illegal treatment of waste. It is however necessary that Member States implement the legislation not only by transposing it into national legislation but also by strictly monitoring its application in practice.
(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. (2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. (3) Commissione europea, Esempi di successo sul compostaggio e la raccolta differenziata, 2000. (4) ANPA: La raccolta differenziata, aspetti progettuali e gestionali, 1999. (5) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. (6) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. (7) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. (8) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0315/01 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council
(14 February 2001)
Subject: Working Party on Education and the Euro
When did the Working Party on Education and the Euro last meet? When will it next meet? What has been (a) its purpose, (b) on its agenda since it first met? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/87
Reply
(31 May 2001)
Since the Working Party in question was set up in 1998 on the initiative of the then Directorate General XXII of the European Commission (now DG ‘Education and Culture’) the Honourable Member is advised to address his question to the Commission.
(2001/C 261 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0316/01 by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission
(13 February 2001)
Subject: The single market
Some of my constituents have been experiencing problems in using payment cards outside the UK, apparently because different systems are in use across the Union.
Is the Commission satisfied with the norms that exist for electronic payment cards? Do different systems exist within the Union? Is the Commission satisfied that those different systems are truly compatible?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(30 March 2001)
In each of the Member States there is a variety of payment cards in use. The payment industry has answered to the needs of the market in very different ways. Some payment cards can be used only domestically, others internationally.
With regard to those destined for international use (e.g. MasterCard, Eurocard, Visa, Amex, Diners …) they are generally accepted where their label is displayed. Whether or not to accept such cards is a decision for the merchant and the merchant’s bank. Although some of the international cards are widely accepted, there is no obligation to do so.
The Commission is aware of the existence of different electronic payment card systems and initiatives have been taken in order to improve the situation. The objective is to reach an adequate level of interoperability between different electronic payment systems.
It should be noted that standardisation is a voluntary and market-led process. Thus, the use of common standards and specifications strongly depends on the willingness of the different market players to co- operate in this domain.
The Commission is promoting payment systems interoperability in different ways:
by supporting standardisation initiatives or similar developments (eEurope smart card charter),
by funding research projects e.g. cross-border electronic purse,
by urging the banking industry to develop a single payment area (Communication on retail payment in the internal market (1)).
(1) COM(2000) 36 final. C 261 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0319/01 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 February 2001)
Subject: Community legislation on the marketing of medicine through the Internet and teleshopping networks
A study on the marketing of medicines through the Internet and teleshopping networks, drawn up by members of the faculty of the University of Barcelona for the STOA Panel of the European Parliament’s Directorate General for Research and published in the March 2000 edition of the European Heart Network newsletter, advocates strongly the need for European rules on e-commerce in medicines.
Rules governing which medicines are available only on prescription differ greatly among the Member States. The availability of US-pharmaceutical products and the more liberal US rules for the advertisement of medication complicate the situation further.
According to the aforementioned study, international regulations should ultimately govern e-commerce in medicines; but, for the time being, Community regulations are indispensable.
Interim measures are suggested in the aforementioned study, including: changes to EU legislation on advertisements and trade in medicines, explicitly taking into account the specific features of electronic media and services; establishing a code of practice for e-commerce in medicines by the pharmaceutical industry; introduction of the possibility of confiscating medicines originating in non-EU-countries if the Union’s legislation is stricter than legislation in those third countries; creation of a monitoring system for activities related to the marketing of medicine on the Internet; and the promotion of health education for Internet users.
1. In what way has the European Commission taken notice of the measures set out in the aforemen- tioned study?
2. Has it taken specific steps for the drafting of EU legislation and international legislation on this matter, which is of great importance for the health of EU citizens?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(11 May 2001)
1. Within the Community a number of specific Directives have been adopted governing the authorisa- tion, labelling, advertising and distribution of medicines which apply equally to the sale of medical products by electronic means as they do to their sale by more conventional means. In addition, Directive 2000/31/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce) (1) provides for transparency requirements, administrative co-operation between Member States and efficient control in the Member State where the on line service provider is located. The Directive clearly encourages the adoption of codes of conduct for medical professions and e-pharmacies, in the same way as these exist already within the regulatory framework.
It is however worth noting that reimbursed medicines are different from almost all other goods, for reasons related to political sensitivity, reimbursement and classification. Despite the Community legislative framework described above, patients have differing access to medicines in different Member States within the Community, just as without, for all of these reasons. At present, demand for internet medication in Europe is demonstrably weak and unlikely to increase tremendously in the near future. The Commission nevertheless feels that there may be some scope for action at Community level to ensure the free circulation of goods whilst keeping a high level of consumer protection. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/89
As a follow-up to the e-Europe initiative, the Commission established a working group during 2000 to examine the impact of the internet on the healthcare sector. At this stage, no specific plans for additional legislation are considered. The Commission is also working with Member States and other stakeholders to establish ways in which possible problems with third country information, advertising and supply might be handled.
2. The global nature of the internet increases the potential for the advertising and sale of pharmaceu- ticals to European consumers by operators from third countries. A considerable amount of work has been taken forward at the international level led in particular by the World Health Organization with the participation of the Commission and the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that patients are aware of the potential problems in using internet sites established in third countries. In addition, the Commission has launched work with the Member States to address these problems at Community level so that the benefits of such systems can be maximized, in terms of better value for money and a more convenient service to patients.
(1) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0322/01 by Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE) and Generoso Andria (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 February 2001)
Subject: Maríne pollution in the bay of Ogliastro Marína
For some years now the bay of Ogliastro Marína, a beautiful place in the Cilento region of the province of Salerno renowned for its crystal-clear waters, has been suffering from a serious environmental problem: daily discharges of sludge which pollute the water and, worse still, prevent people from bathing in it. This is a disastrous situation which involves serious breaches of Council Directive 76/160/EEC (1) of 8 Decem- ber 1975 on the quality of bathing water. The lack of concern shown by environmental organisations is highlighted by the fact that the Lega Ambiente (League for the Protection of the Environment) has awarded the neighbouring port of Acciaroli a ‘blue ribbon’ identifying its water as fully suitable for bathing.
In view of the foregoing:
1. Does the Commission intend to ask the relevant authorities to ensure that the pollution of the bay of Ogliastro Marína is stopped for good?
2. Would the Commission be prepared, if asked to do so, to fund an environmental management project in the area concerned to restore the severely disrupted ecological balance of the bay of Ogliastro Marína?
3. What measures will the Commission take, if it discovers that Community legislation on the environ- ment has been infringed, to ensure that it is implemented correctly?
(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 2001)
The Commission’s powers are limited to those conferred on it by the EC Treaty. In particular, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that Community law is properly applied within all Member States. On the basis of Article 211 (ex-Article 155) of the EC Treaty, ‘in order to ensure the proper functioning and development of the common market, the Commission shall ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied’. On the basis of Article 226 (ex- Article 169) of the EC Treaty ‘if the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an C 261 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.’ The Commission has a discretionary power in deciding whether to initiate such a procedure (1).
Under Article 4 of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975, concerning the quality of bathing water, Member States are obliged to ensure that the quality of bathing water conforms to the limit values set in accordance with Article 3. Under Article 3, Member States set, for all bathing areas or for each individual bathing area, the limit values applicable to bathing water. Under Article 1 ‘bathing area’ means any place where bathing water is found; ‘bathing water’ means all running or still fresh waters or parts thereof and sea water, in which bathing is explicitly authorised by the Member State or it is not prohibited and it is traditionally practised by a large number of bathers.
In the light of the above, breaches of the Directive will arise where the waters of specific bathing areas do not comply with the limit values given in the Annex. The quality of bathing waters is annually monitored under certain parameters by the Member States. This information is sent to the Commission, which publishes an annual report on the quality of bathing water.
On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Members, the pollution, caused by the sludge discharge in the Bay of Ogliastro Marína, could be affecting a zone covered by the areas from 40 to 51 and from 81 to 84 as listed on page 174 of the Italian version of the Commission report for the 1999 bathing season. Therefore, the area to which the Honourable Members refer cannot be precisely identified as within the scope of application of the Directive.
In addition, in the last published Commission Report (on the 1999 bathing season) the above-mentioned 16 bathing areas which are potentially concerned in this specific case have limit values complying with those set out in the Directive.
On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Members, due to a lack of grounds of complaint on the application of Community law, no breach of it can be identified at present.
In general, it should be stressed that, in the Communication (2) of 27 September 2000, the Commission announced the European Strategy for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. This document outlines the principles behind good management of the coastal zone and identifies the actions which the Commission has launched or will undertake to promote this approach. It identifies some of the financial instruments available to improve management of the coastal zone, including LIFE III and Interreg. The document indicates that the local and regional authorities have a key role to play in ensuring the good, integrated management of the coastal zone.
Also Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991, concerning urban waste-water treatment (3), could be relevant to the case. Article 4 stipulates that Member States ensure that urban waste water entering collecting systems shall before discharge be subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment at the latest by 31 December 2000 for all discharges from agglomerations of more than 15 000 p. e. (population equivalent). However, the information given by the Honourable Members does not provide any evidence that Directive 91/271/EEC is not correctly applied.
(1) Priorities and criteria governing the Commission’s discretionary power are listed in the Fourteenth annual report on monitoring the application of Community law 1996, in OJ C 332, 3.11.1997. (2) COM(2000) 547 final. (3) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/91
(2001/C 261 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0328/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 February 2001)
Subject: Cigarette smuggling
There are persistent reports that legally established European cigarette production, storage and distribution companies are also involved in cigarette smuggling in the EU. The Commission has already taken action against two major American companies in this matter.
Given that cigarettes produced by the European cigarette industry are also marketed in the EU countries, will the Commission say:
1. Does it have any information about the involvement of legally established European companies in cigarette smuggling? Does it also intend to take action against such companies should there be sufficient information to back the charges?
2. Which elements of this information are available and can be communicated to us?
Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
(23 April 2001)
The European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) is looking at all aspects involving cigarette smuggling into the Community which affect the Communities financial interests. In this context, the Task Group Cigarettes is working closely with the relevant authorities in the Member States and certain third countries to identify the principals and organisations behind these activities.
Especially, when cigarettes are produced within the Community, exported to third countries, and subsequently illegally reintroduced into the Community, there is a Community competence for carrying out investigations, even if investigations in the field of cigarettes produced in the Community and subsequently diverted without payment of taxes and duties within the Community, fall more generally within the responsibility of the Member States.
Investigations in this area are on-going. At this stage, it is therefore not appropriate to provide further details.
(2001/C 261 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0329/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 February 2001)
Subject: State support for the transfer of Olympic Airways to Spata airport
According to Commission Decision 1999/332/EC (1), Article 57, second indent, Olympic Airways (OA) will have to ‘ensure that the compensation to be granted by Greece for the loss of investment at Hellenikon airport will actually be available in time for the projected investments to be carried out at Spata airport. Otherwise, the company could be exposed to larger cash requirements.’
The Greek Government has also announced its intention of making use of the remaining aid authorised for loan guarantees to cover loans in respect of the transfer to Spata Airport with an indicative budget of GRD 70,2 billion, together with a specific analysis every three months and work which must be carried out. C 261 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Will the Commission say: To what factors does it attribute the delay in the transfer of OA?
In what respects have the conditions set by Decision 1999/332/EC and subsequently not been respected?
Who is responsible?
When is the transfer of the Technical Directorate in particular due to be completed?
(1) OJ L 128, 21.5.1999, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(20 April 2001)
Athens’ new airport opened on 27 March 2001. Since then, the carriers which previously operated at Hellenikon airport have transferred their activities to the new airport. The Commission has no information at present to suggest that any carriers, including Olympic Airways, are experiencing operating difficulties at Spata. Moreover, the Commission’s information shows that the transfer of Olympic Airways’ Technical Directorate to the new airport should be completed this year.
The Commission authorised the payment of aid to Olympic Airways by Decision of 14 August 1998 on the basis of a restructuring plan covering the period 1998-2002. The Commission is in contact with the Greek authorities and is following closely both the current restructuring process and the process by which the company is being privatised, which began in December 2000.
(2001/C 261 E/096) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0330/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 February 2001)
Subject: Delays by the Civil Aviation Authority in implementing international standards
According to Greek press reports, experts of the JAA (European Joint Aviation Authorities) have found that there have been long delays by the Civil Aviation Authority in promoting and implementing international standards and regulations as part of the flight procedures (JAR-OPS), owing to the fact that the Greek Ministry of Transport has failed to press ahead with the legislative framework for the modernisation and incorporation of these standards.
1. Can the Commission confirm these reports? If so, what measures does it intend to take?
2. Could this problem affect the proper functioning of the new airport of Spata and the beginning of operations there?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(10 April 2001)
The Commission has indeed been informed of the doubts expressed within the international aviation community as regards the abilities of those Greek authorities responsible for air safety to assume their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. Moreover that question has already been put by Mr Hatzidakis, a Member of the European Parliament (P-3217/00).
This is why it has initiated an infringement procedure against the Greek Government for poor implementation of the provisions of the regulations adopted by the Community in respect of aircraft maintenance. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/93
As regards the other areas, such as that of the aviation operations highlighted by the Honourable Member, where there are still no common measures, the lady Vice-President of the Commission responsible for transport matters has drawn the attention of the Greek Government’s Ministry of Transport to the shortcomings pinpointed by both the Joint Aviation Authorities and the Civil Aviation Organisation and the American Aviation Administration. In his reply the Minister stressed that the shortcomings were minor in extent and could in no case affect air traffic safety. Moreover, he insisted that, since they had been confirmed, appropriate action had been taken to remedy these quickly. The Commission has taken note of this.
However, at this stage, nothing in the comments of which the Commission is aware enables one to think that the placing in service and the operation of Spata airport could be affected.
(2001/C 261 E/097) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0331/01
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 February 2001)
Subject: Competitiveness of Spata airport
According to Greek press reports, the Spata Airport company has substantially increased rates for the use of the premises and for its services and has also set far higher airport taxes than those in rival airports. If the latter are added to the passenger taxes they will probably mean that the new airport is unable to compete in attracting air traffic.
1. Does the Commission agree that the airport may find it difficult to be competitive and viable owing to its pricing policy?
2. Are these increases in airport taxes and the new passenger charges justified?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(6 April 2001)
Decisions on the level and the structure of airport charges fall under the prime responsibility of the local and national authorities concerned. Pending adoption of the Commission’s proposal (1) for a Directive on airport charges, the general principles of Community law may apply to measures in this field necessitating, in particular, that charges are set in a non-discriminatory manner. No complaint has been forwarded in this respect so far. On the basis of the available information the Commission is not in the position to assess the implication of the proposed level of airport charges for the competitiveness of this airport.
In the absence of detailed information, the Commission is not in the position to evaluate whether taxes and charges to be imposed at Spata airport are justified from the point of view of the air traveller.
(1) OJ C 257, 22.8.1997. C 261 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0333/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 February 2001)
Subject: Shipments of toxic waste
Independent insurance brokers which insure vessels and freight have forwarded reports to the international shipping community warning that crews must be particularly vigilant about the materials they receive from Russian ports, because Russia is endeavouring to export toxic waste by sea. The information states that shipments of iron ore loaded on commercial vessels in Russian ports include decommissioned military materials which have not been controlled or classified. Is the Commission aware of this? If so, what measures does it intend to take to remedy the situation?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(30 March 2001)
The Commission takes note of the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member in relation to this issue. Shipment of waste into the Community must be controlled in accordance with the legal provisions in place at national, Community and international levels. The Community does have specific legislative measures which oblige Member States and persons directly connected with the import of waste into the Community to refrain from engaging in uncontrolled and illicit trafficking of hazardous as well as non- hazardous waste materials.
As far as the importation from Russia of non-nuclear waste into the Community is concerned, the relevant Community legislation which deals with this issue is principally Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community (1). The Regulation contains a number of obligations binding on Member States and persons in possession or in legal control of such waste imported into the Community, as set out in particular in Articles 19-22. These include duly notifying the Member State authorities and ensuring that shipments may only be executed in the absence of objections of those authorities. Any shipment carried out without due notification to or consent from the authorities constitutes illegal trafficking (Article 26). Member States also have specific duties to ensure that illegally imported waste is disposed of or recovered in an environmentally sound manner (Article 26(3)-(4)) and must prohibit import of waste into their juridictions for disposal if they have reason to believe that the waste will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner (Article 19(4)). In addition, under Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 Member States are obliged to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is shipped in accordance with the requirements set out under the Regulation.
‘Decommissioned military materials’ mentioned in the question could also be material which contains or is contaminated by radionuclides and for which no use is foreseen. It would then be regarded as radioactive waste. As far as shipments of radioactive waste into the Community are concerned, Council Directive 92/ 3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community (2) imposes specific obligations on Member States in this context. In particular, Member States are required to ensure that the authorisation procedures under Article 10 of the Directive are complied with, which means that the consignee must apply for authorisa- tion from the Member State of destination.
If the Commission is presented with evidence that any of the Community rules have been contravened, it reserves the right to take appropriate action, which may include initiating infringement proceedings against Member States under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty and/or Article 141 of the Euratom Treaty.
(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993. (2) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/95
(2001/C 261 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0356/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission
(6 February 2001)
Subject: BSE
Can the Commission say whether it is aware of the ‘triangular’ arrangement involving cattle which were allegedly transported from Turkey to Greece, were then sent to the Salento region and then, after being dealt with in two slaughterhouses, were taken to Belgium? It seems that some young adult bovine animals were then transported via two Belgian import-export companies to Italy. They were allegedly sold at a derisory price because they were considered to be ‘high risk’. The Belgian judiciary became involved, not least because the animals were allegedly suffering from BSE.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(24 April 2001)
The Commission has no knowledge of this case. For this reason it cannot comment on the specific allegations. It would be interested to receive any information tending to substantiate them
In general terms it should be noted that Turkey is not allowed to export live cattle to the Community as it does not fulfil the requirements of Council Directive 72/462/EC of 12 December 1972 (1) on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries. Due to the epidemic of bluetongue in Greece, the movements of live cattle from Greek territory to other Member States or third countries has been forbidden since November 1999, in accordance with Greek national legislation and Commission Decision 2000/350/EC of 2 May 2000 on epidemiological surveillance of bluetongue in Greece and certain measures to prevent the spread of the disease (2).
(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972. (2) OJ L 124, 25.5.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0365/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(14 February 2001)
Subject: Xerox restructuring aid from the Irish Government
Xerox is currently in the process of restructuring its European Manufacturing Operations at Venrey, in Holland, Mitcheldean in the UK and Dundalk in Ireland.
However, this restructuring is in danger of being distorted by the fact that Xerox will have to repay thousands of euros to the Irish Government, granted as an incentive to bring it to Dundalk two years ago, for each job lost in Ireland.
Does not the Commission feel that these barriers breach the spirit and, possibly, the letter of European legislation on the establishment of a single European market place?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(5 April 2001)
The Xerox plant in Dundalk, which manufactures computers and other information processing equipment, was awarded initial investment aid in the form of capital and employment grants. Operations at the plant have started and some of the incentives have been paid. C 261 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
The regional aid schemes concerned are approved by the Commission as falling under the derogation foreseen in Article 87(3) (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty.
The inclusion of requirements in grant agreements that grants paid in respect of specific investments be repayable if they are not maintained for a number of years is explicitly foreseen under paragraphs 4,10 and 4,14 of the relevant Commission’s guidelines, namely the Guidelines on national regional aid (1). This provision is aimed at preventing misuse of public money, namely by transferring equipment bought through State aid to another region, which is not eligible to support. At the same time, the five-year clause stems from the necessity to ensure the investment aided has an impact on regional development in that specific region, which would be endangered, were the undertaking allowed to move somewhere else within a short time.
(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.
(2001/C 261 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0369/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council
(14 February 2001)
Subject: Reducing burdens on business
Could the Presidency please outline clear examples, from each Member State, of specific progress achieved on Recital 14 of the Lisbon Summit conclusions regarding a reduction in the costs of doing business and removing unnecessary red tape?
Reply
(31 May 2001)
1. The Honourable Member’s question refers to conclusions drawn by the Presidency at the close of the Lisbon European Council on 23 and 24 March 2000, and specifically to the following:
The competitiveness and dynamism of businesses are directly dependent on a regulatory climate conducive to investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Further efforts are required to lower the costs of doing business and remove unnecessary red tape, both of which are particularly burdensome for SMEs. The European institutions, national governments and regional and local authorities must continue to pay particular attention to the impact and compliance costs of proposed regulations, and should pursue their dialogue with business and citizens with this aim in mind. Specific action is also needed to encourage the key interfaces in innovation networks, i.e. interfaces between companies and financial markets, R&D and training institutions, advisory services and technological markets.
2. The conclusions list a whole series of measures for achieving this objective:
a benchmarking exercise, the first results of which were presented in December 2000;
a Commission communication on an entrepreneurial, innovative and open Europe;
a multiannual programme in favour of enterprise and entrepreneurship;
a European Charter for small companies;
a review of EIB and EIF financial instruments. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/97
All these measures have been implemented within the time limits specified by the Lisbon European Council, and the European Parliament was duly involved in the process, especially in the adoption of the multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship, and in particular for the small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs) (2001-2005).
3. Regarding the outcome of these measures at Member State level, the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that the Commission will evaluate the implementation of the multiannual programme and will submit to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions:
every two years, an evaluation report on progress made in taking account, in a coordinated manner, of enterprise policy in Community policies and programmes as a whole, and of the implementation of the European Charter for Small Enterprises, and
an external evaluation report by the end of December 2004.
(2001/C 261 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0374/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Natural products and scientific assessment
Following the submission of an application by a Belgian firm, it appears that the Scientific Committee on Food has ‘banned’ the use of stevioside, a natural sweetener made of extracts of stevia rebaudiana, which has been used for decades in many countries. This decision dismays consumers, who have serious misgivings about the assessment criteria used by those with the power of decision and fail to see why it is permissible for an artificial sweetener such as aspartame, for example, to be used without restrictions, despite numerous reports of serious side-effects. Consumers have the impression that double standards are applied, when it comes to authorising foodstuffs, depending on whether they are produced by powerful agro-pharmaceutical companies or by small or medium-sized firms.
1. Does the Commission share consumers’ misgivings?
2. Does it agree that the current system for approving substances is influenced more by the power of the manufacturers than by the need for consumer protection?
3. Does it not fear that, if the same system is applied to food supplements, it will lead to the disappearance of many of the most effective supplements available at present, as has already happened in the case of sweeteners?
4. Does it not believe that, so long as the directive on food supplements requires strict controls on admissible substances and ‘sources of nutrients’, it will always be the power of the large and powerful pharmaceuticals proposing the use of a new substance that determine whether or not it will be accepted?
5. That being so, does it not fear that the traditional food supplements industry, which consists of small and medium-sized undertakings, will be squeezed out of existence by the overwhelming strength of the multinationals operating in the same sector?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 2001)
On the basis of applications from two different companies, the Commission requested the Scientific Committee on Food to examine the safety of stevioside as a sweetener and Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni plants and leaves as novel food. The most recent opinions of the Scientific Committee date from June 1999. C 261 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
With regard to the plant products, the Committee concluded that the information provided on the specification, standardisation of the product and safety studies was insufficient. This confirmed an initial assessment report carried out by the national authority that received the application. Consequently, the Commission decided not to authorise the placing on the market of Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni plants and dried leaves as food or a food ingredient (1).
With regard to the sweetener, the Committee expressed concerns regarding the absence of safety data about the genotoxicity potential of a metabolite of stevioside, about the specification of the compound (impurities) and about possible effects on human fertility. Therefore, the Commission did not consider it appropriate to propose the authorisation of this substance as a sweetener for use in foodstuffs.
The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has expressed similar concerns about stevioside as the Scientific Committee on Food.
Aspartame has also been evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food and has been found acceptable for use as a sweetener in food. An Acceptable Daily Intake of 40 milligram per kilogram bodyweight has been set by the Committee. Accordingly, this sweetener has been authorised under Community legislation for a restricted range of foods and with maximum usage levels (2).
The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that the size or the area of activity of the manufacturer neither influence evaluations of food additives carried out by the Scientific Committee on Food, nor will they influence future evaluations of substances for use as ingredients in food supplements.
(1) Commission Decision 2000/196/EC of 22 February 2000 refusing the placing on the market of Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves as a novel food or novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 61, 8.3.2000. (2) Parliament and Council Directive 94/35/EC of 30 June 1994 on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs (OJ L 237, 10.9.1994).
(2001/C 261 E/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0375/01 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Return of canis lupus to Alpine areas
The return of wolves (canis lupus) to Alpine areas, as a result of their migrating from the Italian Apennines, has met with contrasting reactions on the part of national authorities in the light of the laws of the countries concerned, so that various subterfuges have been employed to get round the inflexible Community rules according to which the wolf is a species that may not be hunted.
What are the Commission’s views on the subject, and does it consider that it would be appropriate to agree on joint measures and, possibly, changes to the existing legislation?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(3 April 2001)
The wolf (Canis lupus), with the exception of some populations in Spain and Greece, is included in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive (1) as a species of community interest for which rigorous protection is required. According to Article 12 of the same Directive, this protection includes, among others, the obligation by the Member States to prohibit, in their natural range, all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens in the wild and deliberate disturbance, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/99
The Habitats Directive foresees, in Article 16, the possibility for the Member States to derogate from the provisions of Article 12, provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and that the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. The reasons which can justify such a derogation include the prevention of serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock and other types of property, the interests of public health and public safety, or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature.
Finally, for a number of years already, the Commission has financed with Life-Nature funds projects focussed on assessing the evolution of the situation of the wolf in Europe and particularly in the alpine zone, and on its conservation. These projects have studied and applied several methods of compensation to the farmers for damage eventually caused by the wolf, and of mitigation of that damage. One conclusion of these projects is that the present wolf population in the alpine region is not so large that it might create problems at the regional level, and that the damage caused is at the local level.
The Commission does not believe, therefore, that it would be helpful to work on common measures or to adjust the existing Community legislation, particularly for what refers to the Habitats Directive and its annexes.
(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).
(2001/C 261 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0377/01 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: BSE
There is considerable concern about the risk of ‘mad cow disease’ (BSE) being transmitted to human beings, an eventuality which, unfortunately, may have occurred already in the period before the introduc- tion of specific controls; the European public is beginning to ask whether, in addition to measures rightly aimed at identifying and destroying affected animals and associated measures to prevent the spread of the disease, it would be possible to obtain an accurate estimate of the possible extent of the infection.
What kind of measures could be taken that would apply to the European public as a whole? Do tests exist that could be carried out in the course of a mass campaign to ascertain what percentage of the population is likely to have been infected by the disease? Is there any definite information concerning the transmission of the disease from one human being to another and the implications that might have for donations of blood or organs?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(17 April 2001)
The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s answer to Written Questions E-3746/00 by Mrs Paulsen and Mr Olsson (1), E-4087/00 by Mr Watson (2), E-0163/01 by Mr Zappalà (3) and others, and Oral Question H-0951/00 by Mr Alavanos during question time at Parliament’s January 2001 part- session (4).
At present no valid tests are available for detecting the presence of a bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agent in humans. However, several types of test are currently being developed. C 261 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Although there is scientific evidence linking variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) to BSE, there is neither certainty concerning the transmissibility of BSE to humans, nor the transmissibility via blood or organs of vCJD. However, the Commission is well aware of the potential problem of transmission of vCJD by blood and blood derivatives. The relevant Scientific Committees continuously monitor the latest scientific evidence in that area and the Commission will propose preventive measures as necessary. On 13 December 2000 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on quality and safety of blood (5). This Directive will, once adopted by Parliament and Council, set blood safety standards across the Community and also provide the legal basis for Community measures regarding the prevention of vCJD transmission by blood and blood derivatives.
(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 132. (2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 129. (3) See page 53. (4) Written answer from 16.1.2001. (5) COM(2000) 816 final.
(2001/C 261 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0381/01 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Coal mining in the Ruhr region, North Rhine-Westphalia
Highly subsidised coal is being mined in North Rhine-Westphalia. The Commission only granted the coal subsidy on condition that there would be an overall decrease in production, leading to further pit closures. However, according to the attached newspaper article, which appeared on 27 January 2001 in the ‘Rheinische Post’, Ruhrkohle AG is in fact planning to expand the Walsum pit. In addition, the outline operational plan is to be revised.
1. What is the Commission’s view of the expansion to this pit in the light of the expressed political objective and the conditions made with the aim of reducing the production of highly subsidised coal?
2. If necessary, what does the Commission intend to do in order to prevent an increase in coal production?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(20 April 2001)
1. The Commission authorised State aid to the German coal industry for the year 2000 by Decision of 21 December 2000 (1). The Decision provides in particular for further reductions of activity which must lead to closures of production sites in addition to the closures already planned by Germany for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. These additional closures correspond, in the context of aid for 2000, to a reduction in operating aid under Article 3 of Decision 3632/93/ECSC of DM 1 200 million and to an increase in aid for the reduction of activity of the same amount (2).
The reduction in new production capacity was a crucial element in the decision taken by the Commission. The principle of reducing the coal industry’s costs and production capacity is necessary in order to achieve degression of aids. Nonetheless, it is not within the Commission’s powers to involve itself in decisions taken by the company which owns the mine regarding the operation of any particular pit. The Commission’s power of authorisation with regard to State aid to the coal industry must be exercised strictly within the framework of the provisions of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, and more particularly in the light of the general objectives referred to in Article 2 and the specific criteria laid down for the various types of aid in Article 3 et seq. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/101
It should also be pointed out that the Decision to authorise aid for the year 2000 specifies that Germany undertakes to adopt any general or specific measures necessary to comply with the obligations under the said Decision. Should it emerge that certain measures taken by Ruhrkohle AG were producing a situation other than that required under the terms of the Decision authorising the aid for the year 2000, Germany would be required to ask for the amounts granted but not used in accordance with the Decision to be repaid.
2. On expiry of the ECSC Treaty and Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 23 July 2002, most of the Community coal industry would be likely to disappear in the very short term if no financial support was given. If we want to guarantee the long-term availability of some Community coal mining capacity to cover any unforeseen events which might affect the energy market, there can be no future for Community coal unless there is a mechanism for intervention by the public authorities. This basic principle has been included in the Green Paper on the security of energy supply adopted by the Commission on 29 Novem- ber 2000 (3). An aid scheme would therefore make it possible to guarantee access to reserves by maintaining a minimum amount of subsidised coal.
The Commission nevertheless believes that such a scheme must not under any circumstances deflect the Member States from the need to rationalise the coal industry. The measures for restructuring and reduction of activity started in the framework of the ECSC Treaty must be continued. Any future Community rules for aid to the coal industry must therefore incorporate the principle of the degression of State aid.
(1) Decision not yet published. (2) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry, OJ L 329, 30.12.1993. (3) COM(2000) 769 final.
(2001/C 261 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0382/01
by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Proposed directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment
Why is the European Commission proceeding with a proposed Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment, which would require electrical retailers to offer consumers a free service to take back old electrical products, when the proposed Directive would:
1. force small and medium-sized businesses to use expensive floor space to store waste electrical products,
2. cause practical difficulties for customers transporting these products to retail outlets,
3. cause health and safety problems for retail staff, who would be expected to handle all kinds of dangerous, soiled, greasy or possibly contaminated equipment returned by the consumer,
4. cause huge additional expense to small and medium-sized businesses having to collect old products whilst delivering new ones,
5. require small and medium-sized retailers to apply for a waste-management licence which could only be obtained by sending staff on expensive courses, C 261 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
6. expose small and medium-sized businesses to criminal penalties for selling electrical equipment without a licence thus adding to the number of criminal offences generated by the European Union (such as the British Government’s recent attempt to make it a criminal offence to sell loose goods to British consumers in Imperial weights and measures).
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(6 April 2001)
Article 4 of the Commission Proposal for a Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (1), establishes, inter alia, that Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that systems are set up so that final holders and distributors can return waste electrical and electronic equipment from private households free of charge. To meet this obligation, Member States shall ensure the availability and accessibility of the necessary collection facilities, taking into account the population density. Member States shall ensure that distributors, when supplying a new product, offer to take back free of charge similar waste electrical and electronic equipment from private households provided that the equipment is contaminant free (including radioactive and biological). Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all waste electrical and electronic equipment collected in accordance with this Article is transferred to authorised treatment facilities.
The basic principle is that final holders and distributors are able to return electrical goods without having to pay charges. In the Commission’s view, this principle does not necessarily entail that end of life electrical products have to be physically brought back to the retail outlets. On the contrary, the experience in areas where management of such waste has already started shows that transport to the dismantling or treatment sites is organised in such a way that no significant supplementary burden for retail outlets or for consumers arises. Contacts of the Commission with representatives of retailers’ organisations have confirmed that in many cases the free take-back, as proposed by the Commission, is already part of the service provided to the consumer.
Should additional expenses nevertheless arise, the Commission is convinced that such costs would have to be borne for the benefit of the environment. In this context, the principle of the internalisation of costs into product prices is one of the basic principles of sustainable development. As mentioned in the explanatory memorandum of the proposals, it is clear from the pilot projects on WEEE that charging consumers with disposal costs at the point of return would have negative repercussions on the collection results. Furthermore, the proposal has been subject to a business impact assessment with special reference to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Such an assessment, published by the Commission as Annex II to the Explanatory Memorandum of the WEEE proposal, was carried out in consultation with the relevant associations (including retailers) and did not show any significant negative effect on SMEs.
As regards the need to apply for a waste management licence, Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (2) (Article 12) does not require establishments which collect waste to be subject to authorisation, but only be registered with the competent authorities. Any commercial establishment is, by definition, already registered with the competent authorities. The proposal for a Directive on WEEE does not change this situation.
The issue of possible criminal penalties is not presently regulated by Community legislation. However, in view of the fact that there are still many cases of severe non-observance of Community environmental law, the Commission has adopted a proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law (3). This will establish a minimum standard for elements of criminal offences in breach of Community environment legislation.
(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000. (2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. (3) COM(2001) 139 final. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/103
(2001/C 261 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0383/01 by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Milk cooperatives
If several milk-buying cooperatives and/or dairy farmers’ cooperatives decide to merge, and if that enables them to influence the milk price in a Member State, is there any EU legislation that would affect this decision? Is there a limit on the percentage share of the raw milk market in a Member State that a cooperative could hold, or is this a matter for individual Member States? Are there any circumstances in which the EU would become involved?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(10 April 2001)
If several dairy farmers’ co-operatives merge, the new entity has to be scrutinised under the Community Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1)) if the transaction has a Community dimension. This means that the Commission will have jurisdiction over the transaction if it fulfils the definition of a concentration and meets the turnover threshold set out in the Community Merger Regulation.
The Merger Regulation assesses the possibility of a merger creating or strengthening a dominant position, which could significantly impede effective competition, and requires a prospective analysis. As the assessment is always done on a case-by-case basis there is, in principle, no specific limit on the percentage share of the raw milk market that a co-operative could hold if a merger in the milk sector were assessed. Dominance is not an absolute concept. Market power may be found to exist to a greater or lesser extent and the conclusion will depend on the structure of the market, i.e. the strength of the competitors, barriers to entry to the market, legal requirements and many other elements.
It should be noted that the Commission could also have jurisdiction in accordance with Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty, after any merger has taken place. This would be the situation if the merger co-operatives were found to hold a dominant position on a relevant market and to behave in such a way as to abuse that position, with the behaviour affecting trade between Member States.
(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.
(2001/C 261 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0388/01 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Homeworkers
What analysis, if any, has been carried out by the European Commission of the way in which the Working Time Directive has been implemented to cover homeworkers?
What are the findings of the analysis? C 261 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(2 April 2001)
On 1 December 2000, the Commission adopted a report on the state of implementation by Member States (1) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (2).
The Commission however has not carried out any specific analysis of the way in which this Directive has been implemented to cover homeworkers and this report does not deal specifically with this issue.
(1) COM(2000) 787 final. (2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
(2001/C 261 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0391/01 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: FYROM/Greece: ecological damage to Lake Dojran
There has been a huge drop in the water level of Lake Dojran, which borders the FYROM and Greece, over the past 20 years (5-8 metres). According to various experts as well as local people, too much water is being pumped from the lake by the Greeks for irrigating fields. A number of publications have been drawing attention to this problem since the 1980s. It is not possible at present to assess the scale of the ecological damage.
1. To what extent has agreement been reached between the FYROM and Greece concerning use of water from Lake Dojran?
2. Does such agreement cover ecological aspects, and are there water lifting quotas based on the water level of the lake?
3. What is being done to repair the damage already observed?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(3 April 2001)
The Commission has not been informed by the Greek Government of the existence of a bilateral agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia concerning the use of water from Lake Doirani (Dojran).
The Commission has financed an initial diagnostic study for Lake Doirani (Dojran) as part of the PHARE cross-border cooperation (CBC) programme. The study is a precursor to addressing the technical issues, identifying the cause of the serious reduction in the water level and proposing remedial action through a lake management plan.
There is as yet no specific project for Lake Doirani (Dojran) which, co-financed through the Structural Funds, might aim to repair any environmental damage. Interest in such action has nonetheless been expressed by both countries within the framework of the abovementioned PHARE CBC programme. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/105
(2001/C 261 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0393/01 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Driving licence directive and vision
Driving licence categories and subcategories have been harmonised under Directive 91/439/EEC (1) (the so- called 2nd driving licence directive).
Paragraph 6,2 of Annex III to this directive states that applicants for a driving licence, or for the renewal of such a licence, who have total functional loss of vision in one eye or who use only one eye (e.g. in the case of diplopia) must have a visual acuity of at least 0,6 with corrective lenses if necessary. The competent medical authority must certify that this condition of monocular vision has existed sufficiently long to allow adaption and that the field of vision in this eye is normal.
As a consequence of this provision, a number of people who work as drivers are forced to give up their occupation and, in addition, a section of the population is prevented from entering this occupation, aggravating the difficulties already experienced by the road haulage sector in finding labour.
What compromise solution could the Commission envisage adopting in revising this directive which would be both in the interests of road safety and in the interests of the sector?
(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(4 April 2001)
Annex III of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (1) lays down minimum health criteria, including minimum eyesight criteria, for driving power-driven vehicles. Annex III, point 6.2, of the above Directive applies to holders of and applicants for a ‘Group 1’ licence (passenger cars and motorcycles) and thus does not concern professional drivers of buses and lorries. It is this group of drivers (holders of ‘Group 2’ licences) that Annex III, point 6.3. refers. It foresees that driving licences shall not be issued to or renewed for applications of drivers without a binocular field of vision or suffering from diplopia. The criteria applicable to professional drivers are thus even more stringent than outlined by the Honourable Member.
Current scientific evidence would support the introduction of an examination of eyesight at regular intervals even for drivers of passenger cars and motorcycles. The evidence deriving from scientific studies commissioned by the Commission also indicates that the eyesight criteria laid down in Annex III may not be stringent enough in view of the requirements of road safety.
As regards drivers who obtained their licence before the rules of the Directive came into force, the Commission is aware of the social implications for those drivers of the subsequent imposition of more stringent rules. The Commission proposal for Directive 91/439/EEC at the time contained a so-called ‘grandfather rights’ clause, allowing for the maintaining of less stringent health criteria at a national level for those professional drivers, who had obtained their licence before the Directive’s entry into force. However, the Council rejected this grandfather rights clause and the Directive was subsequently adopted without it.
Given the practical and social implications of the lack of a ‘grandfather rights’ clause for professional drivers, the Commission raised the issue on several occasions in 1998 and 1999 within the framework of a Committee on driving licences. Furthermore, the proposal of the introduction of a limited ‘grandfather rights’ clause for professional drivers is currently being considered in the framework of a substantial amendment to Directive 91/439/EEC. However, the decision on proposing such a clause cannot be prejudiced at the present stage.
(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. C 261 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0395/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Quality control of honey
A spot check was carried out at the Weidahaus border post in Bavaria on a consignment of honey from Rumania, which was imported on behalf of a German company registered in Hamburg.
Laboratory tests showed that the product concerned contained the substance Streptomycin in the amount of 66,6 ug/kg of honey. On 22 February 2000, the German company was informed of the result of the tests; the company, however, then stated that the consignment of honey was bound for Greece and not Hamburg.
The use of antibiotics in bee-keeping is in fact totally banned. However, as the General Consumers Federation of Greece claims, no tests for antibiotics which are prohibited are carried out at all in Greece. Moreover, according to the Federation, random checks on quality and the labelling of honey containers have revealed that a large proportion of the containers either does not meet the required specifications or is misleading for consumers in that the honey they contain is different from that described on the label.
Given that Greece is a country with a high level of annual honey consumption, can the Commission say whether Greece does not in fact carry out the necessary checks even spot checks on honey to determine whether banned antibiotics have been used in consignments of honey which have been marketed and which, allegedly, do not meet the required specifications or where there is a discrepancy between label and content?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(10 April 2001)
The use of antibiotics to treat bees is not permitted in the Community. However, third countries that export honey to the Community sometimes use antibiotics to treat their bees, in accordance with their own legislation.
In this case, products imported into the Community must still meet European standards, in particular with regard to residues of veterinary medical products. In addition to the routine checks at the Community’s border inspection posts, Member States must, every year, implement a monitoring plan for residues in animal products in application of Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/ 358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1). This plan includes the monitor- ing of honey for antibiotics. Greece has submitted the results of its 1999 monitoring plan for residues in honey, which means it is performing the required checks.
Council Directive 74/409/EEC of 22 July 1974 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to honey (2) lays down the main Community standards for the intrinsic characteristics and composition of the product. It is therefore up to each Member State to provide itself with the necessary resources to monitor the implementation of these texts and the Community’s food product labelling rules applicable to honey.
(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996. (2) OJ L 221, 12.8.1974. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/107
(2001/C 261 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0398/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: EU funding to widen the Panama Canal
After its first year of operation, it was realised that the Panama Canal, which is under the sovereignty of Panama, would reach saturation point by the year 2010 unless the necessary investments were made and that its importance for the sea freight sector would decline considerably.
At present the canal is being widened under a one billion dollar project which began in 1996 and will be completed in 2005. However, to meet future requirements, and in particular to enable post-Panama ships to pass through the canal, an investment of at least 5 billion dollars will be required, a massive sum for the country concerned.
In the interests of world trade and the influence exerted by the EU in the region, which is a strategically important enclave, does the Commission think it would be appropriate to propose ways of providing funding for Panama to complete the widening project needed for the canal, which will cost almost 5 billion US dollars?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(27 March 2001)
The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s opinion that the development and security of the Panama Canal are of considerable importance to the Community.
For this reason the Commission previously financed a technical study on the canal’s development prospects and contributed to the Universal Congress.
However, it is not up to the Commission to offer Panama funding to widen the canal, especially since Panama has not sought it.
The cost of the work referred to in the Honourable Member’s question far exceeds the financing possibilities not only of the Community Cooperation Programme with Panama, but also other Community organisations such as the European Investment Bank (EIB).
(2001/C 261 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0399/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Negotiations with the Spanish Government concerning the opening of proceedings in respect of state aid to Spanish electricity companies
It was reported in the media that proceedings were to be brought in connection with the state aid given to Spanish electricity companies cover the costs of transition to competition. However, the efforts made by Vice-President de Palacio succeeded in delaying the case. January has now gone by without proceedings being opened, whether because of Mrs de Palacio’s efforts or for other reasons.
Meanwhile, Commissioner Monti stated during the Davos Summit that progress was being made in negotiations with Spain on the subject. In addition, it has been announced that as a consequence of the merger between Endesa and Iberdrola the CTC could be waived. C 261 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Is there any reason other than the pressure brought to bear by Mrs de Palacio why the proceedings have not been opened?
What progress has been made in the negotiations with the Spanish Government?
Has the Spanish Government indicated that it intends to amend the legal provisions governing CTC?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(6 April 2001)
1. In the case of the costs of transition to competition (‘CTC’) arrangements in the Spanish electricity sector, as in cases of stranded costs in electricity sectors in the other Member States, the Commission thinks it more appropriate to await the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-379/98 (1) before taking any decision. The judgment was delivered on 13 March 2001. It still needs to be examined in detail from the point of view of the assessment of stranded costs.
2. The progress consists in the fact that the Spanish authorities have taken note of a number of points put forward by the Commission in the context of its examination of the case.
3. The Spanish authorities adopted a decree-law on 2 February 2001 amending in particular the sixth transitional provision of Spanish Electricity Sector Act No 54/1997 of 27 November 1997. The new decree-law contains two elements of importance to the Commission: first, the removal of the securitisation and second, the fact that the CTC payments will no longer be funded by levies on imported electricity.
(1) PreussenElektra AG v. Schleswag AG.
(2001/C 261 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0400/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Routing of the ‘Atlantic highway’ through Porriño
In its answer to my Written Question P-1736/00 (1), the Commission stated on 22 June 2000 that it had decided to launch an investigation into the decision taken by the Spanish Ministry of Public Works and the concessionaire enterprise to route the ‘Atlantic highway’ through the district of Porriño (Pontevedra, Spain) close to the Gándaras de Budiño lagoon, an area proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network and already included in the register of natural habitats in Galicia.
What results have been achieved by the abovementioned investigations?
What questions has the Commission asked the Spanish Government, further to its answer to the abovementioned question, and what replies has it received?
Is Community law being observed, in particular Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) on the conservation of natural habitats?
(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 183. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/109
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(5 April 2001)
In answer to the Written Question P-1736/00 by the Honourable Member, (1) the Commission reported that it was not informed of the matters raised by the Honourable Member. Given that the area in question, ‘Gandaras de Budiño,’ was proposed as an area of Community interest (ES 1140011) by the Spanish authorities, the Commission had decided to launch an own-initiative investigation of these matters, requesting confirmation from the Spanish authorities that Community law is being observed in this particular case. It has to be said, though, that, the Commission’s launching of an its own-initiative investigation in this instance does not in any way mean that there has been a breach of Community law. Thus, in this case, the Commission cannot reach a decision until it receives more information about this project from the Spanish authorities.
On the basis of information given by the Honourable Member on the pre-mentioned Written Question, the Commission has asked the Spanish authorities to comment on the matters raised; it has also asked them for a copy of the environmental impact assessment on this project as well as a detailed description of the types of habitats present in the area concerned.
The Commission has received a reply from the Spanish authorities regarding the project in question, which is currently being examined.
However, it should be noted here and now that in their reply, the Spanish authorities point out that the project has been subjected to an environmental impact assessment which declared it to be ‘viable.’ They also stress that even if the project does affect part of the area, the site itself is badly damaged and there are no species and habitats on the site where the project is due to be carried out.
The Commission will ensure, no matter what happens, that the Community law applicable in this case is observed.
(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 183.
(2001/C 261 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0405/01 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Compliance with the Angola-EU fisheries agreement
The government of Angola appears to be about to suspend the Angola-EU fisheries protocol, on the grounds that the Commission has not paid the annual contribution referred to in the protocol and has not complied with its condition concerning introduction of a ‘satellite system’.
Given the serious political implications of suspension, as well as the adverse consequences for the fleets fishing in Angolan waters, can the Commission provide detailed answers on the following points:
1. the reasons for non-payment of the annual contribution and non-compliance with the condition concerning introduction of a ‘satellite system’?
2. the consequences of the above for relations with Angola?
3. the implications for Member States’ fleets and the proposed means of dealing with this problem? C 261 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(30 March 2001)
1. The payment of the first instalment of the financial compensation due under the 2000/2002 protocol to the Community/Angola Agreement should have taken place by 30 November 2000.
The negotiations, which started in January 2000, were only concluded in July 2000, after a third round. The Commission informed the Angolan authorities, during the July round, that it would be difficult to make any payment before 31 January 2001, but Angola insisted on mentioning in the protocol the deadline of 30 November 2000 for the payment of the financial compensation.
As regards the satellite system, the Community is not at fault. The data which constitute the corner stone of that system (co-ordinates for the Angolan Exclusive Economical Zone (EEZ) and contacts for the Angolan Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC)) and without which it is impossible for it to work, had been repeatedly requested from the Angolan authorities since July 2000, but were only received at the end of January 2001, and in a format that does not allow for its direct application. Following their receipt, new contacts have already been launched in order to obtain the information needed for the launch of the system.
2. Despite the Commission’s best efforts, the delay in the payment could not be avoided, and everything has been done with a view to guaranteeing the smoothest possible development of the longstanding relations between the Community and Angola in the field of fisheries.
3. Although at the end of January 2001 Angola signalled to the Commission its readiness to suspend the protocol, that suspension never took place.
(2001/C 261 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/01 by Astrid Thors (ELDR), Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission
(15 February 2001)
Subject: Fur animals in the Netherlands
1. Is the Commission aware of the recent decision taken by the Netherlands Government to ban the husbandry of fur animals in the Netherlands after a period of 10 years, without any compensation for the fur producers?
2. Is it true, as the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture stated on 26 January 2001, that the European Commission has indicated that Member States have the right to determine such bans individually and that the Commission has approved a precedent in the United Kingdom?
3. If the answers to the two preceding questions are in the affirmative, could the Commission indicate which articles of the European treaties allow Member States to take such measures?
4. Does the Commission share the view that, where Member States determine such measures autono- mously on the basis of ethical considerations, this would release those Member States from the obligation to compensate the producers?
5. Would the Commission accept trade in fur products of EU or third-country origin being prohibited in the Netherlands? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/111
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(21 May 2001)
1. The Netherlands have notified the Commission under Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and the Council, of 22 June 1998, on technical standards and regulations (1) of a draft law under which the rearing of fur animals would be banned after a transitional period of 10 years (notification 2001/64/NL). The Commission is currently examining the draft law in accordance with the procedure laid down in Directive 98/34/EC.
2. and 3. The United Kingdom notified a draft law prohibiting the breeding or keeping of animals solely or primarily for the value of their fur to the Commission in 1999. As to its position in this respect, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Members’ attention to its answer to written question E-1512/00 by Mrs Kauppi (2).
4. In the case where a national measure does not infringe Community law, the question of compensa- tion for damages caused by the said measure must be assessed within the framework of national law, taking account also of the need to respect Community provisions on state aids.
5. A prohibition of trade in fur products in one Member State would of course have to be regarded as an obstacle to intra-Community trade. The legality of such a measure with regard to the rules of the EC Treaty concerning free movement of goods would however depend on several factors such as the justifications for the measure invoked by national authorities. As far as the Commission is aware, no Member State plans to enact any such measure. The question as to the Commission’s position in this respect is therefore entirely hypothetical.
(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998. (2) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001.
(2001/C 261 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0415/01 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission
(8 February 2001)
Subject: Food safety and the WTO
Is it the Commission’s view that consumer safety standards are the same for meat and meat products imported from third countries as for products produced in the EU?
How will the Commission ensure that the same standards are applied to imported products as to products produced in the EU and are such standards consistent in that case with WTO rules?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(2 April 2001)
The basic Community health requirements for the production of meat and meat products also apply to imports from third countries. The Community rules include provisions on the enforcement of the requirements, such as certification, inspection and border post control. The general principle that is always upheld for importation from third countries is that the standards of hygiene and of residue monitoring in the third countries must be at least equivalent to those laid down for producers in the single market. The principle for the approval of imports of meat and meat products into the Community is the assurance from the third country’s authorities that the products meet our import standards. Imports are allowed on the basis of a list of third countries approved for exports to the Community, agreed provisions on certification, and lists of establishments approved for exports to the Community. As an integral part of this system, the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office carries out inspection missions to exporting countries to verify that the Community level of protection is met. C 261 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
The Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) permits members to take measures to protect human and animal life and health. These should be based on international standards or, if not, the member must be prepared to provide appropriate justification for the measures, based on a scientific risk assessment. In making its provisions for import measures, the Commission endeavours to use international standards as the basis, but also consults its scientific committees for their advice. All measures covered by the SPS Agreement are notified to the SPS Committee, and the comments received are taken into account. The Commission, having followed the procedures laid down in the SPS Agreement, considers therefore that its measures are consistent with WTO rules.
(2001/C 261 E/118) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0416/01 by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Council
(8 February 2001)
Subject: Electric shock weapons
Given the risk that the use of what are known as ‘electro-shock’ weapons may breach the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms, which require that ‘the development and deployment of non-lethal incapacitating weapons should be carefully evaluated in order to minimise the risk of endangering uninvolved persons, and the use of such weapons should be carefully controlled’, (Principle 3), what action is the Council taking to ensure compliance with that principle in relation to this type of weapon?
Reply
(31 May 2001)
The Member States consider that exports of certain non-military equipment which may be used for internal repression should be monitored by national authorities on the basis as regards civil goods of Community rules, in order to prevent equipment originating in the European Union from being used for acts which violate human rights.
For this purpose the Council has undertaken to draw up a common list of non-military security and police equipment, the export of which should be monitored in accordance with the second criterion of the Code ‘respect for Human Rights in the country of final destination’. Among the items included in this list are portable devices designed or modified for the purpose of riot control or self-protection by the administra- tion of an electric shock, including electric-shock batons, electric shock shields, stun guns and electric shock dart guns and component therefor specially designed or modified for such purpose.
This list will be forwarded to the Commission which is responsible for taking the initiative of proposing a draft Community mechanism for controlling exports of non-military equipment which may be used for internal repression.
The Council has taken note of the Commission’s intention of submitting as soon as possible a proposal based on the list, which should include the afore-mentioned items, enabling Community control arrange- ments to be set up. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/113
(2001/C 261 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0419/01 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission
(16 February 2001)
Subject: Compensation in respect of the new BSE rules
Will the Commission say what national compensation schemes have been introduced, or are envisaged, in the various Member States?
Does it take the view that those schemes are compatible with the Treaty’s provisions on state aid?
If it does not, what action has it taken to prevent the unlawful use of state aid?
If it does, how will it ensure that there is no distortion of competition amongst Europe’s farmers?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(5 April 2001)
The Member States have only started to notify measures that are related to the current bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. The Commission at present does not have a complete view of the measures Member States may want to implement.
So far the Commission has only assessed one State aid measure, N 777/00, which was considered compliant with the EC Treaty (for the full text of this decision see Internet site: http://europa.eu.int/ comm/sg/sgb/state_aids, where all State aid decisions taken by the Commission are made public).
If a State aid would be incompatible with the EC Treaty, the Commission would prohibit such an aid. If the (incompatible) aid concerned would have been granted already, in contravention of Article 88 (ex Article 93)(3) of the EC Treaty, the Commission would ask for a recovery of this aid from the beneficiaries.
To prevent such a situation, the Commission has recently reminded all ministers concerned of their obligation to notify State aids related to BSE.
According to the settled case law all State aids are capable of distorting competition (1). However, Article 87 (ex Article 93)(3) c of the EC Treaty allows this distortion as long as the aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. A short recapitulation of the State aid rules in force (2) that allow, in substance, the financing of preventive measures and/or indemnisation for culling on the basis of national or Community legislation addressing the epidemy, provided that there is no overcompensation of the costs incurred, was attached to that reminder.
(1) Case C-730/79, ECR 1980, p. 2671, paragraphs 11 and 12. (2) See ‘Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector’ (OJ C 28, 1.2.2000).
(2001/C 261 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0423/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council
(20 February 2001)
Subject: United States foreign policy
What are the Council’s views on the official statements of the new Vice-President of the United States, Dick Cheney, on America’s new foreign policy in relation to Cuba and Iraq, and its attempts to convince the rest of the world to accept the construction of the NMD anti-missile defence shield? C 261 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Reply (30 May 2001)
Regarding the question on the NMD anti-missile defence shield, the Honourable Member is kindly invited to refer to the reply to written question No E-0552/01 on ‘United States missile defence’.
(2001/C 261 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0425/01 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council
(20 February 2001)
Subject: Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the abduction of Mr Jacques Depelchin by the Ugandan army
For several years now, the Democratic Republic of Congo has been undergoing a very serious institutional crisis. The most recent illustration of that phenomenon was the establishment of a semi-monarchical regime when Joseph Kabila took power as President, a post previously occupied by his father in a country at the mercy of civil war.
A number of African armies have moved troops into Congo. Rwandan and Ugandan troops, in particular, occupy important areas, respectively in the east and in the north-west of the country. There, they indulge in military and paramilitary activities without any supervision or any legal basis which might justify them. The Ugandan army recently committed acts of violence against the local population and undertook terrorist operations against local political representatives. That culminated in the abduction of Professor Wamba dia Wamba and his colleague, Dr Jacques Depelchin, by Colonel Muzoora Edison, Commandant of the Bunia sector, Major Gureme, Captain Medi Baguma, Lieutenant Tinka Godfroid and six other ranks of the UPDF. Mr Depelchin was taken to Colonel Muzoora’s HQ in Bunia and then transferred to Kampala after being held in solitary confinement for seven hours. For several days now, Mr Depelchin has been on hunger strike in an attempt to persuade the Ugandan authorities to inform him of the charges brought against him and to secure restoration of his rights in full.
This action by the Ugandan army is only one of a series of acts of intimidation and terrorism perpetrated by Ugandan soldiers against the people living in the region occupied by the Ugandan army and, in particular, against activists belonging to the Congolese Democracy Alliance Liberation Movement (Rassemblement congolais pour la Démocratie Mouvement de Libération).
What information does the Council have about Mr Depelchin’s plight? What measures has it taken, or does it intend to take, with a view to securing his immediate and unconditional release by the Ugandan authorities? In more general terms, what is the EU’s position, if indeed it has a position, on the establishment of a semi-monarchical regime in Congo? What measures will the EU take to help resolve the crisis which has been has been plaguing the country and the region for many a long year?
Reply
(30 May 2001)
The Congolese Rally for Democracy-Liberation Movement (Rassemblement congolais pour la Démocratie Mouvement de Libération, RCD-ML) is a Congolese rebel group backed by Uganda.
Besides the information given by the Honourable Parliamentarian and news reports corroborating this information, the Council does not dispose of any information concerning the RCD-ML official Mr Depelchin’s plight.
According to some sources, the abduction of Mr Depelchin is linked to the hema-lendu conflict in the Uganda controlled part of the DRC. Another development in the region, which might have had an influence, has to do with the merger between the Congolese Liberation Movement (MLC) and parts of the RCD-ML, a merger imposed by Uganda according to some sources but not supported by all members of the RCD-ML. The Council issued a declaration on the first of February this year concerning the hema-lendu conflict in north-eastern DRC, where it expressed its concern over the continued violent clashes between 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/115
the hema and lendu groups and the massacres in the Bunia region of north-eastern DRC’s Oriental Province. A situation, exacerbated by the continued military presence of the Uganda army in this part of DRC, which hampers the efforts to re-establish peace there.
In this context, the EU also called on the Ugandan authorities, responsible for upholding the respect for human rights in areas under their control, to do their utmost to put an end to these massacres, and to use their influence on the DRC rebel movement in the area to likewise concur with this objective.
Concerning the succession that took place in the DRC, the Council condemned the assassination of President Laurent Désiré Kabila and reaffirmed that lasting peace in the DRC can only be achieved through a negotiated peace settlement which is fair to all parties and through respect for democratic principles and human rights in all States of the region.
The Council (General Affairs) has discussed the situation in the DRC both at its meetings in January and in February, each time adopting conclusions expressing support for peace in the DRC and in the region in accordance with the Lusaka Agreement and the Kampala and Harare Agreements and in conformity with relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. It has likewise welcomed the adoption of UNSC Resolution 1341 approving the updated concept of operations for MONUC to which the EU has offered continued political and material support.
The Council reiterated the importance of an early start to the National dialogue and the EU’s readiness to continue to support its institutional framework.
The Council welcomed the provisions in 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 groups referred to in Annex A, Chapter 9,1 of the Lusaka Agreement. The EU is willing to work with the international community, in particular the UN specialised agencies on the modalities of such a programme. It has also mandated the European Union’s Special Representative to engage in a reflection on how to pursue this question.
The Council (General Affairs) on 26 February 2001 also expressed deep concern at 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.
(2001/C 261 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0432/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(16 February 2001)
Subject: EU participation in new Indian Ocean multilateral fisheries organisation
From 5 to 10 February 2001 the FAO held a meeting on the island of Réunion to set up a multilateral regional fisheries organisation covering the south-west Indian Ocean. The objective is to regulate the exploitation of the region’s fishing-grounds. Can the Commission state whether it intends to participate in the process of creating this new regional fisheries organisation?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(22 March 2001)
The Commission is fully involved in the work on the establishment of the new Regional Fisheries Organisation for the South of the Indian Ocean and took an active part at the meeting organised by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in Réunion on 5-10 February 2001. C 261 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that on 2 February 2001 the Council adopted a negotiating mandate authorising the Commission to negotiate the setting up of this new Regional Fisheries Organisation.
(2001/C 261 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0437/01 by Martin Callanan (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(16 February 2001)
Subject: The BP Trent tragedy in June 1993
In June 1993, nine British sailors were killed when the Panamanian registered vessel the ‘Western Winner’ collided with the British fuel tanker the ‘BP British Trent’ near the Belgian port of Ostend.
Maritime investigations into the accident have shown that the Korean captain and crew of the ‘Western Winner’ were to blame, having failed to comply with essential maritime safety laws. In spite of this, neither the captain and crew of the ship nor its owners, Alpha Beta Investments, have been prosecuted for malpractice.
What measures is the Commission taking to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(20 April 2001)
The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction to prosecute the captain, the crew or the owner of the ship. Nevertheless, the Commission asked the Belgian authorities for information regarding the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. From the information received it appears that the case is still pending before the Criminal Court of Bruges and that the Belgian authorities thus cannot interfere with the judicial process.
(2001/C 261 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0441/01 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission
(16 February 2001)
Subject: Recruitment of permanent officials at the European Commission
Can the Commission indicate:
1. How many permanent officials it has recruited since 1 January 1991 through open competitions, broken down by nationality, category and grade?
2. How many of these new officials broken down by nationality, category and grade, have since terminated their employment with the Commission on a permanent basis? How many are presently on unpaid leave (CCP), broken down by nationality, category and grade? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/117
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(11 April 2001)
The Commission has recruited 5 119 permanent officials through open competitions from January 1991 until end of February 2001.
Year Number 1991 316 1992 305 1993 361 1994 543 1995 562 1996 731 1997 565 1998 493 1999 480 2000 627 2001 (two months) 136 Total 5 119
The table comprises the officials recruited on the Operational Budget (budget de fonctionnement) and it includes figures for the Office for Official Publications and the European anti-fraud office (OLAF).
A table concerning the breakdown by nationality, category and grade is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat.
Of these officials, 171 (3,34 %) have terminated their employment with the Commission on a permanent basis since 1991. The main reasons are resignation (94), transfer to another European Institution (54) and invalidity (15). A table concerning the breakdown by nationality, category and grade is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat.
Currently (as of early March 2001), 194 (3,79 %) of these new officials are on unpaid leave (CCP). A table concerning the breakdown by nationality, category and grade is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat.
(2001/C 261 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0446/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(16 February 2001)
Subject: The labelling of animal extracts in medicines
Ingredients of animal origin are essential to the manufacture of a large proportion of medicines. Since this is a matter of concern to some vegetarians, what plans has the EU’s Pharmaceutical Committee to indicate on the labels of medicinal products whether they contain material extracted from animals?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(25 April 2001)
Medicines are products administered to humans to either prevent or treat illnesses or to make a medicinal diagnosis (1).
The purpose of Community legislation is to guarantee that safe and effective medicines are placed on the market and to provide information for patients. C 261 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
The labelling of medicines is therefore intended to indicate the active ingredients of medicines in qualitative and quantitative terms, plus the list of excipients having a known action or effect i.e. having either an effect on the metabolism or producing allergic reactions in certain patients.
In addition, to ensure that patients are fully informed, the leaflet for users is to state in full the active ingredients and excipients in qualitative terms (2). All other information in leaflets and on labels, also given in full, is intended to permit the correct use of medicines. Patients are therefore given access to detailed information on the contents of medicines.
In accordance with the objectives of Community legislation in force, ingredients of animal origin are not specifically indicated as such. There are no plans to change this legislation.
However, health professionals will be able to provide interested patients with more information.
(1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products, OJ B 22 of 9.2.1965. (2) Council Directive 92/27/CEE of 31 March 1992 on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets, OJ L 113 of 30.4.1992.
(2001/C 261 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0447/01 by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(16 February 2001)
Subject: Tomato aids in 1999/2000
In June 1999 the Commission agreed that the price and aid levels to apply for the 2000 marketing year would include, in the calculation formula, the figures for tomato exports from the People’s Republic of China.
All the producer Member States voted against in the Management Committee when it debated the price and aid proposal submitted by the Commission.
Within the Commission, Commissioner Franz Fischler appears to have expressed his willingness to review the regulation under which aid was cut by 20,54 % for the 2000 marketing year, should the decision- making background significantly change.
Should the data for China be included for purposes of calculating the aid, the result would be a level of aid significantly different from that which has hitherto applied.
There is a legal precedent from 1987, in a case relating to sultanas brought by Greece.
The level of aid € 34,5 per tonne set by the COM for the 2001 marketing year confirms the unfairness of the abnormally low and penalising level established for the 2000 marketing year. By accepting the former level higher than that initially proposed in the process of reform of the COM the Commission tacitly recognised that an injustice had been done.
In view of the above, it may be concluded that the most elementary principles of fairness and ethics, as well as technical considerations, dictate that the aid level for the 2000 marketing year should be set at the same level as that which will apply for the 2001 marketing year.
Can the Commission state how it intends to compensate industrial units in respect of the difference between the two levels of aid? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/119
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(11 April 2001)
The processing aid for tomatoes for the 2000/01 marketing year was calculated in strict compliance with Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products (1).
No official information on the price charged in China for the purchase of tomatoes delivered to the processing industry is available. Moreover the Chinese authorities have provided no information on their exports of processed tomato products.
The Commission does not intend to amend Commission Regulation (EC) No 1519/2000 of 12 July 2000 setting for the 2000-2001 marketing year the minimum price and the amount of production aid for processed tomato products (2).
(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996. (2) OJ L 174, 13.7.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0452/01 by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 February 2001)
Subject: EU and third-country fisheries agreements
1. How many fisheries agreements are currently in force between the EU and third countries on a cash- for-fish basis?
2. What is the total cost of these agreements?
3. Which Member States benefit from these agreements in terms of access to fishing opportunities?
4. What are the main conservation arrangements applied to each agreement?
5. How does the EU monitor the effectiveness of these conservation measures?
6. Does the Commission have a list of privately negotiated and privately funded fisheries agreements between EU fishermen and third countries? If so, can answers be given to questions 1-5 above with regard to those private arrangements?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(3 April 2001)
As at January 2001 the Community had concluded or was negotiating a total of 23 fisheries agreements, 19 of which include financial compensation.
The appropriations committed for fisheries agreements came to € 121,6 million in 2000, given that the Community was not able to conclude an agreement with Morocco and that the appropriations for the agreement with Angola (€ 13 975 million) could not be committed in 2000. For the 2001 financial year, € 290 499 978 in commitment appropriations have been entered.
All the Member States except Austria and Luxembourg benefit from the fishing rights obtained within the framework both of fisheries agreements and of regional fisheries organisations. About 2 800 Community vessels operate entirely or partially in third-country and/or international waters. C 261 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
In accordance with the Community’s international commitments, the protocol to each fisheries agreement stipulates the conditions governing Community vessels’ fishing operations, including as regards areas, technical measures and monitoring fisheries activity (catch reporting, landing requirements, observer boarding, vessel monitoring system (VMS), etc.).
The Community is not empowered to monitor the implementation of conservation measures in third- country waters. However, it is subject to a number of obligations with regard to monitoring the activities of its vessels operating under the agreements as provided for in the agreements’ terms.
The Commission does not have an exhaustive list containing specific information on existing private agreements between European shipowners and third countries in the fisheries sector. However, where those private agreements have resulted in joint enterprises being established and receiving Community aid, the Commission possesses information in accordance with the requirements stipulated by the correspond- ing legal bases. But in order to maintain the confidentiality of personal data, the Commission is not permitted to disclose that information.
The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has carried out an ‘Assessment of joint enterprises in the context of structural operations in the fisheries sector’, a copy of the summary of which will be sent to him direct and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
(2001/C 261 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0453/01 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 February 2001)
Subject: Longline fishing
Given that longline fishing is carried out by European Fishing vessels in the North Atlantic, that this form of fishing accounts for tens of thousands of seabird deaths and because of that, these longline fishing techniques, species of seabirds such as the short-tailed albatross and fulmar are seriously endangered that, in all, 26 species of seabirds are in danger of extinction, could the Commission outline what measures it intends to introduce to improve the current situation with regard to longline fishing as part of its wider fishing regulations to promote ‘seabird-friendly’ longline fishing?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(30 March 2001)
In respect of the dangers to seabirds from longline fishing, whilst no major problems are envisaged for the fulmar in the North Atlantic, whose large global population (10-12 millions birds) does not place it at risk, the main concerns regard albatrosses and other species, essentially in the Southern Oceans.
To tackle this problem, the Community has already incorporated the following mitigation measures into Community legislation (1):
Using bird-scaring line with plastic streamers attached;
Weighting the lines so that they sink faster and pose less risk;
Prohibiting the discharge of offal at sea, which attracts seabirds to the lines;
Setting the longlines at night, when albatrosses and other seabirds are less likely to be foraging;
Using only thawed bait. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/121
These measures, which are compulsory for Community fishing companies, have been drawn up by the Council for the Conservation of Antarctic Maríne Living Resources (CCAMLR), which deals with Antarctic waters, and of which the Community is a contracting party.
In addition, the Commission and Member States have been involved in the preparation of the international plan of action for reducing incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries. This international plan was adopted at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 1999. This year during the COFI (26 February 2001-2 March 2001) the first step of the national plans of action will be presented. The Community, based on the information sent by Member States, is proposing to start the plan by carrying out an assessment and by collecting data in order to evaluate the extent and nature of the incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries where it occurs.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 66/98 of 18 December 1997 laying down certain conservation and control measures applicable to fishing activities in the Antarc repealing Regulation (EC) No 2113/96 (OJ L 6, 10.1.1998) and Council Regulation (EC) No 2479/98 of 12 November 1998 amending Regulation No 66/98 laying down certain conservation and control measures applicable to activities in the Antarctic (OJ L 309, 19.11.1998).
(2001/C 261 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0454/01
by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 February 2001)
Subject: Angling in the European Union
Given that the European Anglers’ Alliance (EEA) is a pan-European organisation with a membership of 6 million anglers across 20 European countries and that the socio-economic value of angling is significant in many rural communities throughout the EU, could the Commission outline why efforts by the EEA to carry out a study of the ‘socio-economic benefits of recreational angling in the European Union’ were not deemed to be of sufficient interest by DG Fisheries?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(23 March 2001)
The Commission is fully aware that sport fishing concerns a large number of people and that it has a major impact on the socio-economic situation of certain coastal areas within the Community. It is precisely because of the importance of the contribution of this activity to the development of certain local economies that it decided to associate the European Anglers Alliance (EAA) more closely with the work of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, when it discusses subjects of interest to its members. By so doing, the Commission enables the EAA to set out the concerns of sport fishermen and defend their legitimate interests at an appropriate level.
The Commission is not, however, able at present to agree to the request it received to finance the study proposed by the EAA on the socio-economic benefits of angling. This is because the contribution sought substantially exceeds the finance available to the Directorate-General for Fisheries for such socio-economic analyses and because the Commission can make contracts only as a result of a call for tenders. C 261 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0468/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(20 February 2001)
Subject: Reform of the Commission
Has the actual time taken to check and pay an invoice increased or decreased since the implementation of the Register of Invoices?
What is the current average time delay between receipt and payment of invoices?
What time delay is the Commission aiming for?
Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
(17 April 2001)
It is planned that the information system for registering invoices common to all services of the Commission will be available for use as from 1 July 2001. This date is stated in Action 11 in Part II of the White Paper ‘Reforming the Commission’ adopted on 1 March 2000 (1). In the meantime the services continue to use their own individual systems.
The average time delay between receipt and payment of invoices in the year 2000 was 50,2 days.
By 2002 the Commission is aiming to make 95 % of its payments within 60 days of receipt of a valid request for payment. This aim is stated in Action 10.
(1) COM(2000) 200 final.
(2001/C 261 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0470/01 by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission
(21 February 2001)
Subject: Construction of a sewage treatment plant in Mallorca
Plans have been drawn up to build a large sewage treatment plant in the Prat de Sant Jordi area of the municipality of Palma de Mallorca on the island of Mallorca, designated an area of unspoiled nature under Law 4/1987 on conservation of the countryside and other specific laws. The choice of this for the project in question is illegal and contrary to the environmental impact assessment carried out by the construction company itself.
The planned construction site is less than 400 metres away from the communities of Sant Jordi and S’Aranjassa and is therefore in breach of Royal Decree 2414/61 approving a regulation on activities involving inconvenience, health risks, harm or danger. Article 4 of that regulation stipulates that such activities must be undertaken at a distance of at least 2 000 metres from any populated area.
For its part, the Ministry of the Environment is presenting the construction project as extension work. However, this is far from being the case, since the project does not provide for any kind of link with the existing plant and uses a different site set apart from the latter. Furthermore, there are no plans to carry out structural or technical alterations to the existing plant or to the machinery already in place.
The environmental report commissioned by the construction company has found that putting the planned plant into operation will result in an increase of up to 80 decibels in noise levels, further unpleasant odours and a rise in the mosquito population, with the potential to provoke physical and psychological illnesses amongst local residents. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/123
In addition to the above, in considering the framework directive on water policy in February 1999 the European Parliament advocated an integrated Community policy that is effective and coherent and takes account of the vulnerability of aquatic ecosystems located near coasts or estuaries. Furthermore, one aim of the Commission’s framework directive on water policy lies in achieving the good status of surface water and groundwater. Is the Commission aware of the situation described above? Does it envisage taking measures of any kind? Will it say whether the plans to build the sewage plant in question conform to Community rules?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(19 April 2001)
The Commission was not aware of the matters raised by the Honorable Member.
Firstly, it should be noted that the question of the distance between the site in question and the communities falls within the competence of the national authorities and is not governed by Community law.
The Community environmental legislation which might be applicable in this case is 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) Article 2 of this Directive 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 consent is given.
This provision applies to the projects listed in Annexes 1 and II to the Directive. Water treatment plants are included in Annex II. Under the terms of Article 4 of the Directive, projects covered by Annex I must be made subject to an obligatory environmental impact assessment. Projects covered by Annex II must be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.
It should be noted that Directive 85/337/EEC was modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2). The construction of sewage treatment plants of more than 15 000 population equivalent, as defined by Article 2(6) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 on urban waste water treatment, is covered by Annex I (3). Other sewage treatment plants are included in Annex II. It should be noted that Annex II (13) covers ‘Any change or extension of projects listed in Annex I or Annex II, already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment.’
Under the terms of Article 3(2) of Directive 97/11/EC, if applications for development consent were submitted before 14 March 1999, the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to these amendments apply.
The recently adopted 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 (4), is not applicable to this case as the deadline for the transposal of this Directive has not yet expired.
The Commission has contacted the Spanish authorities in order to ask them for their observations on the application of Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC in this particular case.
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. (3) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991. (4) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000. C 261 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0479/01 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission
(13 February 2001)
Subject: Request for repayment by Spain of ESP 55 000 million (€ 331,1 million) for unduly paid agricultural aid
The media have reported that the European Commission is asking Spain to repay € 331,1 million (ESP 55 000 million) for unduly paid agricultural aid. It refers in particular to:
failure to apply the special set-aside scheme for herbaceous crops: € 167,2 million;
deficiencies regarding the production and consumption of olive oil: € 71,1 million;
additional levy in the milk sector: € 61 million;
inadequate control system for the herbaceous crops sector: € 22,1 million;
failure to respect deadlines for aid: € 4,2 million.
Can the Commission provide detailed and full information concerning the basic data on which it is basing its claim, together with details of the headings from which amounts were unduly paid and the possible irregularities?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(20 March 2001)
The correction relating to arable crops was arrived at by excluding, for the 1995 marketing year, all areas set aside on which allowances were paid where a special set-aside measure not attracting allowances should have been applied, and by taking account of the financial consequences resulting from the effect that the rightful application of a special set-aside measure would have had on other crops.
The effect of the failure to apply a special set-aside measure in respect of irrigated and non-irrigated areas amounts to:
Budget heading 1060: ESP 8 967 561 774
The effect on other crops of the failure to apply a special set-aside measure in respect of irrigated and non- irrigated areas amounts to:
Budget heading 1052: ESP 6 990 851 920
Budget heading 1050: ESP 11 865 361 513
In the case of production aid for olive oil, the correction amounted to 5 % of the expenditure declared under budget heading 1210 in the 1997 and 1998 financial years, i.e.:
5 % of ESP 75 170 366 600, and
5 % of ESP 161 351 956 820 respectively.
In the case of the additional milk levy, the correction was arrived at as follows:
Budget heading 2071-102: additional levy payable: ESP 8 020 335 291
Budget heading 2071-122: interest on arrears: ESP 2 426 259 870
Budget heading 2071-102: additional levy paid: + ESP 301 976 829
With regard to the shortcomings in controls concerning areas taken into account, the correction was based principally on the ‘tramitada’ areas of three autonomous communities (Castile-La Mancha, Castile-Leon and Andalusia), i.e. ESP 201 858 648, budget heading 1040 (1996 harvest). 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/125
A 25 % correction was made to expenditure under budget heading 1052 (ESP 3 283 310 250), i.e. ESP 820 827 563.
A 5 % correction was made to expenditure declared under the arable crops scheme in Andalusia (1996 and 1997 harvests) in respect of the following budget headings: 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055 and 1060: i.e. ESP 585 106 511 (1996) and ESP 2 668 866 704 (1997).
The failure to meet deadlines for payment relates to the following budget headings: 1053-004, 1210-063, 1210-064, 1210-074, 1858-001, 2540-001, 3100-054, 3100-114, i.e. a total of ESP 718 317 392.
These corrections are given in detail in Summary Report AGRI-24491-2000 of 16 October 2000, which was forwarded to Parliament on 19 February 2001.
(2001/C 261 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0487/01 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) and Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (22 February 2001)
Subject: Minority languages and freedom of expression in Greece
Mr Sotiris Bletsas, a member of the Society for Aromanian (Vlach) Culture, was sentenced on 2 February 2000 to fifteen months in prison and a GRD 500 000 fine for dissemination of false information (under Article 191 of the Penal Code). The charges were based on the fact that, in July 1995, he had distributed at the Aromanian Festival a publication of the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages which referred to languages in Greece.
Does the Commission consider this attitude compatible with the European values of freedom of expression and opinion and cultural and linguistic diversity? Has it asked the Greek authorities for any formal or informal information on this issue?
Could the Commission’s Legal Services review Article 191 of the Greek penal code for compatibility with the spirit of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law recognised by the Treaties?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (4 May 2001)
The Commission takes a keen interest in this case and has been following it closely. However, on the basis of the information currently available to it, the Commission cannot give a full answer to this question. It has therefore asked the Greek government to communicate a copy of the judgement as soon as it becomes available, together with any other relevant information on the case.
(2001/C 261 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0492/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission (22 February 2001)
Subject: Specific measures for transport for the Ultra-peripheral Regions
Given that the Community guidelines for implementing the Trans-European Transport Networks need to be revised, in order adequately to integrate the ports and airports of the ultra-peripheral regions into these C 261 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
networks, according to the undertaking given by the Commission in its report on implementing Article 299(2), which concerns the ultra-peripheral regions and other issues relating to transport,
When does the Commission intend to draw up a proposal adopting specific measures in favour of these regions as regards the implementation of the Common Transport Policy?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(20 April 2001)
As the Commission indicated in its report of 14 March 2000 on the application of paragraph 2 of Article 299 (ex Article 227) of the EC Treaty, it is taking account of the problem of the outermost regions, where such is not already the case, in its various common transport policy and trans-European network initiatives.
Thus it is that the Commission has made an active effort to take greater account of the outermost regions in amending Decision 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (1) in respect of maritime and inland ports and Project No 8 of Annex III. As the Commission indicated in its answer to Written Question No 297/01 by the Honourable Member, Parliament and the Council are about to adopt this amendment.
According to the joint text adopted by the Conciliation Committee on 28 February 2001, ports located in the insular, remote and outermost regions and which allow maritime connections between these regions or connect them with the Community’s central regions may thus be considered to belong to the network. The adoption of this amendment will thus provide a new opportunity for the insular and outermost regions of the Union to boost their economic development.
Moreover, as the abovementioned report indicates, the review of the guidelines for the development of the trans-European network will be a further opportunity for the Commission to implement the policy priority it gives to projects for these regions when they reach a satisfactory stage of maturity. In its examination of the economic and technological developments which are necessitating changes to the guidelines, the Commission is thus taking account of the question of the outermost regions.
(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
(2001/C 261 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0497/01 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: Efficient management of the radio spectrum
Article 82f of the Netherlands media law prohibits commercial radio broadcasters from participating at the same time in more than one commercial frequency package. This ban recently attracted a great deal of publicity, as in principle it means that two associated radio stations cannot both be eligible to be assigned a frequency in the auction of terrestrial frequencies to be held in the Netherlands in the summer of 2001. There was consequently a danger that the popular commercial broadcaster Classic FM, which has around one and a half million listeners, would disappear from the Dutch airwaves, as it belongs to Sky Radio, which is also to take part in the auction of terrestrial frequencies. As the imposition of such a ban was not in accordance with the opinion of the Netherlands Competition Authority or of a majority in the Lower House, which saw no objection to participation by the two stations, the government decided to allow both Classic FM and Sky Radio to take part. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/127
1. Does the Commission take the view that Article 82f of the Netherlands media law is in accordance with European telecommunications legislation, and in particular with the provisions on the management of radio spectrum policy in the directive on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services, and the forthcoming changes to this directive?
2. Does the Commission agree that the goal of an auction is to ensure that scarce resources are allocated efficiently, and does it agree that the ban preventing two associated radio stations from both being eligible for FM terrestrial frequencies provides no guarantee that the scarce space will actually be utilised efficiently?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(11 April 2001)
1. Directive 97/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (the Licensing Directive) concerns the procedures for granting general authorisations and individual licences.
The title of the Directive already indicates that the radio broadcasting services referred to by the Honourable Member are not included in the scope of the Directive, because they are not considered to be telecommunications services. Article 1(1) of the Directive confirms this.
The future regulatory framework, as proposed by the Commission in July 2000, is intended to cover all transmission networks for electronic communications including networks and services for the transmission of radio or television broadcasts. However, the proposed framework does not cover the provision of content services, including broadcast content. In any case, the Commission proposal is currently under negotiation in the Parliament and the Council and an assessment of the provisions referred to by the Honourable Member would have to wait until a final text for all relevant Directives has been adopted.
2. It is the Commission’s understanding that the restriction of granting only one licence per radio broadcaster, as laid down in Article 82f of the Dutch Media Law, may serve a specific purpose, for instance to ensure media pluralism.
However, the provision itself provides for a derogation under paragraph 3 in order to take into account the efficient use of radio frequencies. The Dutch Media Law thus allows the Dutch authorities to act on the basis of the criterion of an efficient use of radio frequencies and grant more than one frequency to a radio broadcaster.
(2001/C 261 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0498/01 by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: Transalpine transport: Brenner Base Tunnel and transalpine link between Lyon and Turin
What is the Commission’s view of France’s and Italy’s plans to build a transalpine rail link between Lyon and Turin? Is this going to be the only project for transalpine transport and will it jeopardise the future of the Brenner Base Tunnel project, or will Italy honour its commitment and proceed with a second major transalpine transport project and build a Brenner Base Tunnel? C 261 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(23 April 2001)
The Commission welcomes the decision taken by the Italian and French governments with regard to the Lyon Torino Alpine crossing project and would in fact favour of an accelerated implementation of the project. This project having been identified in the transport trans-European network (TEN) Guidelines as project of common interest and, on top of this, forming part of the 14 transport TEN projects endorsed as priority by the European Council at Essen, the Commission is committed to promoting this project to the best of its ability. Particular attention is being given in this respect to the planned Mont Cenis base tunnel which would connect both Member States involved.
Lyon Torino will not remain the only Alpine crossing railway project of the trans-European transport network. The Brenner project, linking München and Verona and involving a base tunnel under the Brenner pass comparable in scope, technical features and cost to that under the Mont Cenis, deserves the same degree of attention. This project also being included in the list of ‘Essen projects’, the Commission has already granted significant political and financial support in past years, and taken a number of initiatives to facilitate co-operation amongst the parties involved. The Commission notes with satisfaction that, thanks to the commitment of the Member States concerned (i.e. Italy and Austria in particular) and with the Commission’s support, noticeable progress was made in the last few years with the technical studies for the Austrian Inn Valley section (now ready for construction) and with the preparation of the Brenner base tunnel. The setting up of the ‘Brenner Base Tunnel European economic interest grouping (EEIG)’ at the end of 1999 has provided for an efficient execution of technical, environmental, geological, financial and economic studies. These studies now being well under way, their completion is envisaged for around 2006/2007. The Commission is paying particular attention to enquiries into alternative financing concepts for the financing of the Brenner project, which are about to be launched, and provides appropriate assistance in this respect. These activities show in the Commission’s view that the Italian government remains fully committed to the Brenner project.
(2001/C 261 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0501/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: Acoustically reflective gillnets
In order to prevent cetacean bycatch, scientists in the USA have invented an acoustically reflective gillnet which reflects audio signals in the range that small cetaceans can hear. Is this Commission aware of this?
When these nets were tested in the USA and Canada, fishermen reported a significant reduction in levels of bycatch.
Given the large numbers of small marine animals that are caught in gillnets in European waters, does the Commission intend to support the testing of these types of gillnets within the EU?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(5 April 2001)
The Commission is aware of this kind of acoustically reflective gillnet and information on the results of preliminary tests has also been made available to the Directorate general Environment and Directorate general Fishery through the Bristol report of the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (Ascobans). 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/129
The Commission is willing to support, as has been done up until now and provided that they pass the external peer review, all scientifically sound research proposals which aim to identify possible technical improvements to fisching gear to mitigate incidental catches of small cetaceans.
For the time being, the Commission has not received any formal proposal either within the so called ‘Biological studies’ or within the 5th Research and Technological Development Framework Programme.
However, as regards the possibility of testing such fishing gear in Community waters, the Community established a Community framework for the collection and management of the data needed to conduct the common fisheries policy (1). Article 9 of Council Decision 2000/439/EC of 29 June 2000 on a financial contribution from the Community towards the expenditure incurred by Member States in collecting data, and for financing studies and pilot projects for carrying out the common fisheries policy (2) foresees the spheres of activity which may be covered for studies and pilot projects.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 (OJ L 176, 15.7.2000). (2) OJ L 176, 15.7.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0503/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: EU-wide ‘scams’ against the consumer
Is the Commission aware of letters being sent to the recently bereaved in some Member States from addresses in Italy, Holland, France and Switzerland purporting to provide through ‘lunar magic’ such services as ‘hypnotelepathic transmission treatment’, and ‘four months of luck’, for a payment of £39.
What arrangements exist, or does the Commission intend to establish, to enable it to liase with the police and trading standards officers in Member States, with a view to sharing information about EU-wide frauds and planning concerted action?
In the view of the Commission, does the provision of ‘four months of luck’ at a cost of £39, represent good value for money for the consumer?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(2 April 2001)
The Commission is not aware of the specific practice mentioned and is grateful for this having been brought to its attention.
The International Marketing Supervision Network (IMSN) brings together national consumer protection enforcement bodies from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries to share information and plan concerted action. A sub-group of the IMSN has been established to bring together enforcement bodies from the Community. The Commission has also established a network for the exchange of information between the national enforcement bodies in the Community. Its forthcoming communication on co-operation on consumer protection enforcement will make policy proposals to reinforce co-operation between Community enforcement bodies to address practices such as this. C 261 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0506/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: Accession negotiations with Turkey
The bodies of more than 2 000 Greek Cypriots, said to have been killed by the Turkish armed forces shortly after their invasion of Cyprus in 1974, are believed to lie in unmarked graves in the so-called ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’; the bodies of some hundreds of Turkish Cypriots killed at the same time are also said to lie to the south of the Green Line.
The ‘TRNC’ authorities have to date refused requests that the graves be opened so that the bodies of these missing Cypriots can be identified, despite the fact that the Cypriot Government has offered to do the same, and that such action would assist conciliation between the two communities.
Has the Commission asked for assistance from the Government of Turkey in bringing pressure to bear on the ‘TRNC’ authorities to identify the missing persons killed by the Turkish armed forces in Cyprus, which is also an applicant for EU membership, and, if not, will it do so?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(2 May 2001)
The Honourable Member makes reference to the question of missing persons in Cyprus following the events of 1974. The Commission understands that 1 493 cases were submitted by the Greek Cypriot side to the United Nations Committee on Missing Persons (CMP) set up in 1981 to investigate and determine the fate of missing persons (seven have since been confirmed as dead). 500 cases were submitted by the Turkish Cypriot side (which cover the period since 1963). In 1997 the two sides agreed to provide all the information available to them to help resolve the issue but there have been no further developments in this process since 1998.
This matter can be further addressed in the framework of the Union’s enhanced political dialogue with Turkey.
(2001/C 261 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0507/01 by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: Car park of the Commission
Is the car with the registration number EUR 0364 in the service of the Commission?
Who usually has the use of the car?
Who had the use of the car at the end of January?
Why was it in the compound with the families and lawyers of the Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing at their trial in Holland? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/131
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(23 April 2001)
Until 21 February 2001 the registration number EUR 364 was attributed to the Transport service of the Commission.
At the end of January 2001 the car was in use as a service car to the Commission Representation Office in The Hague.
The Head of the Commission’s Representation in The Hague was officially nominated as observer for the Commission at the so-called ‘Lockerbie trial’ which took place in Zeist (Netherlands). The car was parked in the common parking places close to the entrance to the court building. That car park was used by all observers of the trial and also by the families and lawyers of the Libyans accused.
The registration number is at present not in use. Pictures of the car, clearly identifying its registration number, appeared in Dutch newspaper and TV media coverage. It is standard procedure that for security reasons the registration number is taken out of use in such cases.
(2001/C 261 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0508/01 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 Council
(23 February 2001)
Subject: The role of the Economic and Social Committee and the prioritising of expenditures within the European Union
Can the Council 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 Council feel that if the Commission cannot find additional funds through elimination of wasteful expenditure within the Commission itself that the Member States should 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?
Reply
(30 May 2001)
It is not for the Council of the European Union to give an opinion on the role of a Community body provided for by the Treaty. However, the attention of the Honourable Members is drawn to the relevant provisions of the Treaty (Articles 257 to 262) defining the role and function of the Economic and Social Committee. These provisions were basically confirmed by the Treaty signed in Nice on 16 February 2001, which extends the composition of the Committee by referring to organised civil society and by specifically mentioning consumers. This Treaty is currently subject to ratification by the Member States.
With respect to the second part of the question, the Honourable Members are invited to consult the European Commission. C 261 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0515/01 by Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: European computer driving licence
A number of organisations have sprung up in Italy issuing a European computer driving licence to applicants who follow a course and pass an exam (both subject to fees).
In the interests of consumer protection, will the Commission clarify whether the European computer driving licence (ECDL) enjoys any legitimacy and/or recognition as a European qualification?
From what legal source does the legal recognition of this licence derive?
Is the Commission aware of, or has it authorised, use of the Community logo (European flag) by centres issuing the licence and on the licences issued?
If the Commission has recognised the licence, why has it endorsed a qualification based on Microsoft software, rather than, say, Linux software, which is free?
What will the Commission do to protect those who do not possess this licence but are competent computer operators?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(24 April 2001)
The European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL) project, which aims at establishing a computer skills accreditation system on a pan-European basis, was developed with the financial support of the Commis- sion’s Esprit and later the Leonardo da Vinci programme. Initiatives such as the ECDL are intended to reduce the information and communication technologies (ICT) skills gap. At this point in time, however, there is no mechanism for endorsement of this or any other qualification as ‘European’. Any recognition of qualifications of a nature such as that described by the Honourable Member or delivery of a diploma in this field is still within the competence of the Member States.
In cases where a Member State does recognise such a qualification, the Honourable Member might like to refer to the legal authority in that Member State to trace the legal source for such recognition.
In the context of the Leonardo da Vinci programme, the contractor has the contractual obligation to ensure that all products developed under the contract mention the financial support of the programme (1). ECDL is therefore entitled to use the European flag, as the project was developed with Community funding.
The ECDL as a certificate is not based on any particular software platform. It is based on the practical demonstration of a competency level (in the modules concerned) of familiar office applications. The software that may be used to ascertain that level is a matter for negotiation between the applicant and the test centre concerned. The management of ECDL lies with the European Computer Driving Licence Foundation.
It is not entirely clear what the Honourable Member means by the term ‘protect’. Through its various programmes and activities the Commission encourages European citizens to develop their information technology (IT) skills. The European Computer Driving Licence is one opportunity among others for users to test these skills.
(1) Article 7,8 of the 1996 contract ‘The Contractor undertakes to take measures for the dissemination of the various training products which are produced under this contract. Furthermore, the Contractor undertakes to mention “Leonardo da Vinci” support at all events and in the various training products which are produced under this contract’. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/133
(2001/C 261 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0517/01 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: Second and third CSFs for Greece: operational programmes for culture
Following the approval of the third Community support framework (2000-2006), the process of complet- ing the drafting and approval of the new operational programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) is in its final stage.
What is the appropriations total covered by the proposals submitted to the Commission for the operational programme for culture? Could a table be supplied with a breakdown of priorities, individual actions and the proposed appropriations which correspond to them?
What are the amounts for national, Community and private participation in the operational programme for culture? What method was used to draw up the priorities included in the operational programme for culture, and which bodies were involved?
What strategy was put forward and what is the (quantitative) evaluation of the effects on culture of the operational programme’s development? What bodies are involved in drafting and implementing it?
What plans have been included in the operational programme on culture and which partners were involved in the relevant consultation carried out under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999?
What was the consumption of appropriations for culture in the 2nd CSF (1994-1999), and what happened to the appropriations from the 2nd CSF which were not utilised?
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(25 April 2001)
The Culture operational programme (OP) falls under priority 3 Quality of life of the Greek Community support framework for the 2000-2006 programming period. Its primary aims are (a) to boost protection of and capitalisation on Greece’s cultural heritage and (b) harmonious supply/demand expansion for cultural goods at regional level. This OP is complementary to those for Information society and Human resources and action under the Community Initiatives.
Priority will be given to action to help improve the tourist products offered by Greece and strengthen cultural development. Special attention will be given to all methods of directly and visibly improving the attractiveness and accessibility of archaeological sites and museums.
The draft OP analyses the present situation in the culture sector. It details a development strategy and priority aims (with quantified targets) and contains a descriptive summary of the measures, financial plan, implementing provisions and ex ante evaluation.
For the entire period 2000-2006 about € 605 million will be available:
(€ millions) European Regional Development Fund 414 68 % National contribution 176 29 % Private funds 15 3 % C 261 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
The OP’s structure is:
€ millions
Community con- Priority Description and targets tribution 1 Protection of and capitalisation on cultural heritage 267,75 modernisation and construction of museums: 60 000 m2 increase in visitors to museums and archaeological sites: 25 % 2 Expansion of modern culture 134,25 modernisation and construction of cultural centres: 30 000 m2 completion of two metropolitan culture centres: 120 000 m2 increase in audiences: 15 % 3 Technical assistance 12,30
The programming complement, to be drawn up by the Monitoring Committee for the programme after its adoption by the Commission, will contain the detailed financing plan and a precise list of the measures to be part-financed.
The Commission has been informed by the Greek authorities that the draft OP was drawn up by the Ministry for Culture in close cooperation with the regions, the Ministries for Economic Affairs and Labour and agencies such as the Secretariat for Equal Opportunities and drafting committee for the Information society programme. During the preparatory stage various ministerial circulars invited all potential recipients under the programme to submit proposals and observations.
The projects to be part-financed under the OP will be chosen by its managing authority using appropriate criteria. Technical maturity and correspondence to the priorities are prime considerations. Project selection can potentially spread over the whole OP period (2000-2006). Thus no project list is available at present.
The exact take-up rate of the appropriations assigned to Culture in the 1994-1999 CSF will not be known before the payment period ends on 31 December 2001. As all appropriations have been committed and the projects appear to be advancing satisfactorily the take-up rate will probably be 100 %.
(2001/C 261 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0519/01
by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: Procurement of computers versus environmental criteria
The Swedish Agency for Administrative Development has been commissioned by the Swedish Government to procure 400 000 new personal computers for government ministries, agencies and local and regional authorities. In its invitation to tender the Agency has specified that the computers must not contain certain toxic chemicals such as flame retardants and heavy metals such as cadmium and antimony.
The Commission has questioned whether the Agency has specified the environmental criteria in the proper manner in what is the biggest PC procurement contract yet in Sweden. The Commission reportedly claimed that the criteria might constitute obstacles to trade. The Agency claims that the environmental criteria are reasonable and balanced. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/135
Can the Commission explain why it does not consider that the Agency has specified its environmental criteria in the proper manner?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(27 April 2001)
The Commission informs the Honourable Member that, in the specifications for the contract in question, Statskontoret provides for the exclusion of bidders whose tenders do not meet certain minimum technical requirements concerning the presence in the plastic mechanical parts of the computers of certain heavy metals, such as cadmium and antimony, and certain substances such as brominated flame retardants. Only insofar as including these criteria in specifications had discriminatory effect would the Commission have to consider them unlawful pursuant to Articles 28-30 (ex articles 30-36) of the EC Treaty.
The Commission notes that at least one of the substances that the Swedish authorities do not accept, antimony, is unregulated both at Community level and in Sweden. Other substances are only partially regulated. Consequently, products containing this and other substances forbidden in the tendering procedure can be legally sold and marketed in all Member States including Sweden, and no information has so far been presented to justify the exclusion of this substance. Against this background, such a limitation, which could favour or eliminate certain suppliers or products, may be contrary to Articles 28- 30 of the EC Treaty.
The Commission still has to examine the various supplementary pieces of information conveyed to it by the interested parties in this case before taking a position on the action to be taken and proposing, if appropriate, to initiate infringement proceedings on the basis of Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. In its examination, the Commission will also take account of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (1).
Applying criteria bound up with considerations relating to tenderers’ ‘environmental capacities’ in evaluating offers is only compatible with the rules on public supply contracts (2) if these criteria concern the deliverables or the implementing rules and contribute to the choice of the tender offering the best value for money.
(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000. (2) Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993).
(2001/C 261 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0520/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: Team Europe
Can the Commission provide details of the current situation of Team Europe? How many people in Sweden are currently involved in information work? Who are they? What is the recommended lecturer’s fee? How is Team Europe marketed? What was the Commission’s expenditure on Team Europe for the financial year 2000 and what are the estimated costs for the year 2001?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(23 April 2001)
Team Europe has 540 speakers throughout the Member States. They tend to be academics, researchers, consultants or people from different economic sectors, specialising in various aspects of European policy. The Team members give lectures on the various aspects of Community policy, by request only, to schools C 261 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
and universities, the voluntary sector and trade organisations (chambers of commerce, professional associations, agricultural organisations, etc.).
The Swedish Team Europe is made up of 25 speakers.
The members of Team Europe are not paid by the Commission and there are no hard and fast rules on the subject. Their fees, if any, are in theory agreed in advance, on a case by case basis, between the organiser of the event and the Team Europe lecturer. Some talks are given free of charge, to schools or to the voluntary sector, for example.
Team Europe is marketed in several ways. At EU level, the Europa website includes a Team Europe webpage which is updated regularly and lists speakers by national team and by specialisation. Some Representations also have their own Team Europe page on their Internet site. Brochures on Team Europe have been produced and translated into all Community languages. They may be distributed by speakers in the course of their lectures. Finally, speakers take charge of their own publicity through networks of acquaintances and contacts.
The Commission provides support for the network in particular through its Help Desk (the Team Europe Information Service or TEIS) for lecturers. Its aim is to provide them with the documentation, information and training needed to ensure a top-quality network. The TEIS budget for the financial year 2000 (December 1999 to November 2000) was € 667 148.30. There was also a meeting of all network members in September 2000 (cost: € 139 098,26). The current financial year covers the period from December 2000 to September 2001; the budget allocated is € 525 118.39.
(2001/C 261 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0523/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(23 February 2001)
Subject: Sponsorship of Council meetings in Sweden
The Swedish media have published reports concerning sponsorship agreements some already concluded others under negotiation to provide various services during Council meetings in the first half of 2001 in Sweden. There have been negotiations and agreements on everything from the provision of soft drinks and the arrangement of dinners to transport of various kinds.
Can the Council publish a list of the sponsors whose services have been engaged for all manner of things in connection with the Council’s meetings in Sweden? Is any calculation available of the total financial value of the sponsorship agreements?
Reply
(31 May 2001)
The State holding the Presidency is responsible for organising all meetings, including informal ministerial meetings, held in the country of the Presidency.
As a result, only the Swedish Government is in a position to provide information on the organisation of these meetings. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/137
(2001/C 261 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0525/01 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: Stability pact in Spain
In 1997, a year before the final choice of the countries which would comprise the EMU, Spain met not one of the parameters established at Maastricht:
the inflation rate had been fixed as 3,6 % in 1996, well above the average of the best-performing countries,
the public deficit, which in 1995 had reached its maximum of 7,3 % of GDP, fell to 4,6 % in 1996, a figure much higher than the 3 % maximum demanded in Maastricht.
Under these conditions, the Spanish Government decided to freeze the salaries of its officials, a decision which has recently been contested by a ruling handed down by the High Court.
How does the Commission estimate the amount by which public spending and, therefore, the deficit (assuming constant fiscal pressure) would have risen had the salaries of civil servants been raised to keep pace with the CPI?
Would the Commission have recommended that Spain join a first wave of EMU, if the salaries of public workers had been increased in accordance with CPI forecasts?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(10 April 2001)
The Commission cannot estimate how public expenditure and the government deficit in Spain would have developed in recent years if public servants’ wages had increased in line with Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation. In such an event, the government could have varied other budgetary items of both revenue and expenditure. There is thus little value in answering a hypothetical question regarding Spain’s participation in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).
(2001/C 261 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0529/01 by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: The economic situation
On 18 January 2001, Commissioner Solbes stated that ‘a two percentage point fall of GDP in the USA means a 0,15 % reduction in the Community’s GDP’.
What econometric model underpins this claim?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(17 April 2001)
The figures mentioned in the question refer only to the direct trade impact on the Community economy of a slowing in the United States economy. The United States is the most important export market for the Community. On 1999 figures, exports to the United States represent some 24,1 % of extra-Community exports. However, as the Community is a relatively closed area, the same amount of exports is worth only 2,3 % of Community gross domestic product (GDP). C 261 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Assuming a standard GDP elasticity of United States imports from the Community, a 2 percentage point drop in United States growth, will reduce Community export growth to the United States by 6 to 8 percentage points, shaving about 0,15 percentage point of Community GDP growth. This is an estimate of the direct impact (second-round effects are not taken into account).
(2001/C 261 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0530/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: Property rights and enlargement
As is widely known, the ‘Real Socialist’ regimes in the Central and Eastern European countries abolished private property, which was confiscated. With the gradual return to democracy, the governments of some of those countries have decided to recognise that the rightful owners (or their descendants) of property that was confiscated still have a right to that property with particular reference to houses and land. Such persons are thus able to regain possession of the property confiscated from them, although the procedures for doing so are complicated. In some cases, however as has happened in Romania former owners are being offered not the land that was in their possession at the time of confiscation, but a replacement. This has given rise to dissatisfaction and tensions, due not so much to any comparison between the financial value of what was lost and what has been returned in its place, but to sentimental reasons, since the confiscated property is intimately bound up with family memories and traditions.
Can the Commission state whether, during the negotiations with the applicant countries:
1. it is checking whether property rights have been restored?
2. it is able to establish whether confiscated property has actually been returned to the rightful owners or their descendants?
3. it has set up a service which may be contacted by citizens of the countries concerned who wish to appeal against decisions by the public authorities to offer them property other than that which was confiscated?
4. it is willing to apply all possible pressure with a view to ensuring that property rights are fully respected, particularly those of families whose property was confiscated?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(18 April 2001)
The confiscation to which the Honourable Member refers took place before the entry into force of the Treaty of Rome. Article 295 (former Article 222) of the EC Treaty states that the Treaty should in no way prejudice the system of property ownership in the Member States. The matter therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the candidate countries themselves and not the European institutions. Consequently, the system of ownership is not being discussed in the accession negotiations, nor is the Commission carrying out any investigations. Any complaint from citizens of the candidate countries must be made to those countries’ authorities or to the European Court of Human Rights.
The Commission did, however, touch on the problem in its 1997 opinions on the applications from the associated Central and Eastern European countries. Where necessary, it has referred to the problem in the reports on the progress made by the candidate countries towards accession, which it presents every year to Parliament and the Council, and in particular in the 1999 and 2000 reports on Romania. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/139
(2001/C 261 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0534/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(28 February 2001)
Subject: Working languages in the European Patent Office
The European Union believes in the principle that any individual can approach the Institutions in any one of the eleven official languages. The question of the working languages of the European Patent Office must be seen in this light.
Does the Council acknowledge that applications for patents submitted to the European Patent Office should be in the eleven official EU languages? If so, in what way does the Council guarantee that individuals and firms can submit patent applications in the eleven official EU languages? If not, why not?
Reply
(30 May 2001)
The Council has no powers in respect of the European Patent Office or the policy on language use which obtains there. The Office is not a European Union institution; it is part of the European Patent Organisation, which is an intergovernmental organisation set up by the Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention), an intergovernmental convention concluded in Munich in 1973.
The Council would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to his Question P-0762/01, which covers the same subject matter.
(2001/C 261 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0539/01 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) and Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(23 February 2001)
Subject: Unanswered questions in connection with the ECHO affair
In ground 49 of his judgment of 15 January 2001 in case T-236/00 R, the President of the Court of First Instance expressly stressed the right of every Member of Parliament pursuant to Article 197(3) of the EC Treaty to put questions to the Commission and to receive answers, even where these involve the transmission of confidential information.
On 26 January 1999 the Commission did not reply to written questions E-3613/98, E-3614/98, E-3615/98, E-3616/98, E-3617/98, E-3618/98 and E-3619/98 (1) in connection with the ECHO affair, referring instead to the work of the Committee on Budgetary Control.
Since then these questions have lost none of their topicality. Is the Commission now prepared to answer them point by point?
(1) OJ C 182, 28.6.1999, p. 108. C 261 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(5 April 2001)
In his order of 15 January 2001 in Case T-236/00 R Gabriele Stauner and others v. Parliament and Commission, the President of the Court of First Instance finds in ground 49 as follows:
The fact that the framework agreement states that certain information may be provided only to the parliamentary bodies listed at paragraph 1.4 of annex 3, namely the President of the Parliament, the chairpersons of the parliamentary committees concerned, the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents, does not strip individual Members of Parliament of their right to put questions to the Commission and to receive answers from it, even where these involve the transmission of confidential information, as was the case before the adoption of the framework agreement. It should be pointed out in this connection that the Commission’s discretion to decide whether to communicate confidential informa- tion in its reply to a question put by an individual Member of Parliament under the third paragraph of Article 197 EC and in accordance with the relevant provisions of Parliament’s rules of procedure is not affected even indirectly by the framework agreement.
This ground must be read in conjunction with grounds 50 and 51, which state as follows:
However, where a request for confidential information is made by Parliament, that is, by one of the parliamentary bodies referred to in paragraph 1.4 of annex 3 to the framework agreement, the forwarding of this information by the Commission is now governed by the provisions of the framework agreement. It follows that, at first sight, the framework agreement, which is confined to regulating relations between the Commission and Parliament, has not changed the legal situation of individual Members as regards their right under the third paragraph of Article 197 EC, does not affect the right there established and thus has no legal effect on individual Members of Parliament.
The President of the Court of First Instance thus indicates that the framework agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission, approved by Parliament on 5 July 2000, does not alter the way in which the Commission has to deal with questions put by Members of the European Parliament under Article 197 EC. He also points out that the Commission has a degree of discretion to decide whether to communicate confidential information in a reply to a question put under Article 197 EC.
Given these findings by the President of the Court, the Commission considers that it has nothing to add to the replies it gave to the questions referred to by the Honourable Member or to the detailed information that it has provided on this case on a number of occasions.
(2001/C 261 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0540/01 by Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) to the Commission
(23 February 2001)
Subject: Environmental impact assessment of the plan to route a high-speed rail line through Santa Oliva (Tarragona, Spain)
The Commission has initiated an infringement procedure against Spain for failure to comply with the Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (Directive 85/337/EEC (1) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2)) in granting permission to build a railway line linking Tarragona and Valencia.
In accordance with the aforementioned Directive, has the Commission looked into the specific case of Santa Oliva (Tarragona), and the serious environmental impact and even greater socio-economic costs 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/141
involved in planning to route the Lérida-Barcelona stretch of the high-speed line through Santa Oliva? A study conducted by the Santa Oliva town council has found that, were it to go ahead, the project would directly affect 44 homes in the Camí dels Molins area, and indirectly affect 98 homes on the Sant Jordi housing estate and 200 homes in the Les Pedreres area.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above facts, has the Commission also considered whether the planned route through Santa Oliva is compatible with the stipulations of Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 (3) laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks?
What measures does the Commission intend to take, should the route prove incompatible?
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. (3) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(24 April 2001)
The Commission recently received a complaint about possible misapplication of Council Directive 85/337/ EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, alleging shortcomings in the environmental impact assessment conducted on the planned Lérida-Martorell high-speed rail line. This is being studied.
As regards the specific case of Santa Oliva, the Commission is analysing the content and implications of the documents submitted by the town council.
The information supplied by the Honourable Member is not sufficient to draw conclusions about any possible infringement of the abovementioned Directive.
The Commission has indeed initiated an infringement procedure against Spain for incorrect application of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment in the case of the ‘Las Palmas-Oropesa’ stretch of the planned Valencia-Tarragona line. This particular stretch, which entails laying 13 kilometres of new track, had not been submitted for an environmental impact assessment, as required by the obligations laid down in the Directive. However, this infringement procedure does not concern the stretch mentioned in this written question.
The choice of routes submitted to the Commission for funding under Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks is exclusively up to the Member State.
(2001/C 261 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0549/01 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) and Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Payment of aid to breeders of Podolica cattle
The breeding of Podolica cattle is today an important sector of the livestock industry in the Basilicata area and receives support under national and Community aid policies.
In some areas this activity is conducted in a proper and profitable manner, but in others it is having an adverse effect on the environment (while in the former case the aid is actually used for breeding purposes that is to say, meat production in the latter the activity is a ‘front’ and is conducted almost exclusively for the purpose of obtaining the aid payments available). The Maratea area comes into the latter category. C 261 E/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
The municipality of Maratea is home to a large number of low-quality Podolica cattle which are reared in breach of grazing laws (the grazing areas are mainly located on steep hilly terrain and as they move around the animals often dislodge stones, which fall onto the main roads lying below; the pastures in which ampelodesma grass (the Podolica breed’s main foodstuff) grows are located only in areas where there has been a fire, which, subject to heavy penalties, may not be used for grazing for a period of two years; and makeshift gates and barbed-wire fences are widely used to prevent the animals from moving down into the valley).
The above activities are in breach of regional law. Nonetheless, the government, which uses forestry service personnel to patrol the area, continues to pay out aid despite the huge number of infringements recorded, and thus short-circuits the whole process.
This situation calls for swift action in the form of clear regulations making it impossible for breeders who infringe the grazing laws to receive aid and, in the longer term, a revision of the general framework for the payment of aid. In particular, the basic criterion (the number of animals that may be grazed in a given area) should be replaced by one which places greater responsibility on breeders, not least for protecting the mountain environment.
How does the Commission intend to set about tackling the above problems?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(19 April 2001)
The Commission and the Member States are currently engaged in implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (2).
The first Regulation provides for aid for the structural development of Objective 1 regions, subject to certain restrictions, in particular of an environmental nature.
Under the second, agro-environmental measures provide for aid intended to encourage farmers to use production methods which preserve and improve the environment. Aid is granted per hectare but on condition that the number of animals on the area concerned does not exceed a limit compatible with safeguarding and improving the local environment. In order to receive aid, the recipient has to undertake to provide management which appreciably exceeds good farming practice and to keep to this obligation for a period of at least five years.
Therefore, the Community rules do not need to be changed but they must be properly enforced, on the basis of full and satisfactory application of good farming practice in the region. This will have to include rules on grazing in mountain areas so that the regional administration, in requesting approval of the 2000- 2006 programme, undertakes to grant premiums only to stock farmers who abide by these rules.
The Commission has no power to act concerning the activities of forestry personnel or infringements of the regional laws but can suspend its part-financing of rural development programmes if its control bodies note an infringement of Community rules and of the commitments entered into by the national authorities and by the recipients of aid.
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/143
(2001/C 261 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0553/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(20 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for each Directorate-General
During the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control on 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commission President provide a similar figure for financial transactions within each Directorate-General, plus the overall average figure for 1999, and if not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0554/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Budget
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Budgets provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0555/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Competition
AT the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Competition provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0556/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Development
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %. C 261 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Development provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0557/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Economic and Monetary Affairs
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Economic and Monetary Affairs provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0558/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Education and Culture
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Education and Culture provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0559/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Employment and Social Affairs
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Employment and Social Affairs provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/145
(2001/C 261 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0560/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Enlargement
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Enlargement provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Enterprise and Information Society
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Enterprise and Information Society provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0562/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Environment
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Environment provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0563/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG External Relations
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %. C 261 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for External Relations provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0564/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Health and Consumer Protection
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Health and Consumer Protection provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/166) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0565/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Insurance for DG Internal Market
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for the Internal Market provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0566/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Justice and Home Affairs
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Justice and Home Affairs provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/147
(2001/C 261 E/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0567/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Regional Policy
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Regional Policy provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0568/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Research
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Research provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0569/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Trade
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Trade provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
(2001/C 261 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0570/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Transport and Energy
At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %. C 261 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Transport and Energy provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?
Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
(11 April 2001)
The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission’s financial management on the basis of this single indicator.
Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.
Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.
Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
(2001/C 261 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0572/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: E-mail problems
The sending of electronic junk mail (e-mails which are completely useless to and unwanted by their recipients, often containing viruses) is a major problem world-wide.
1. Does the Commission have data on the number of junk mails handled daily by the e-mail system?
2. Has it calculated the cost to users of dealing with junk mail?
3. What ideas does it intend to put forward for tackling the problem of junk mail?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(23 April 2001)
The Commission agrees that the sending of unsolicited e-mails causes important problems, to both users and internet service providers (ISPs).
A study was commissioned by the Commission on the subject matter of unsolicited commercial communications and data protection. This study was completed in January 2001 and provides useful information on issues raised in the question (1). The study refers for instance to a likely capacity of specialised companies to send in total 20 billion commercial e-mails per day. The study also indicates that the cost for users would amount to around € 10 billion a year world-wide. It also mentions a clear shift 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/149
from spam (unsolicited e-mails) towards marketing techniques based on the prior consent of e-mail addressees (‘permission-based marketing’).
The Commission proposes to tackle this issue through its proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic commu- nications sector (2), intended to modify and replace the existing 97/66/EC Directive of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 (3) in view of technological developments.
In particular, Article 13 of the proposal subjects the sending of e-mails to the prior consent of the subscriber. This so-called ‘opt-in’ regime will bring e-mails under the same regime as the one applicable to faxes and automated calling machines. It will also harmonise existing approaches within the Community where some Member States have already implemented an opt-in system, while others have an opt-out approach.
(1) The report is available at the following URL address: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/media/dataprot/studies/spam.htm. (2) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000. (3) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.
(2001/C 261 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0575/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 February 2001)
Subject: Radioactive waste
According to reports published on 12 February 2001 in the Athenian newspaper Kathimerini, Albania has allocated former mines as a storage facility for radioactive waste from Germany.
1. What information does the Commission have on the storage of radioactive waste in former mines in Albania?
2. Does it consider that the method of storing radioactive waste in former mines, as practised in Albania, is safe? If not, what effects could it have on public health?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2001)
The Commission has no information about the storage of radioactive waste from any source in Albania.
Under Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community (1), a Member State cannot authorise the shipment of such waste to a third country if that country ‘does not have the technical, legal or administrative resources to manage the radioactive waste safely’.
In general, the practice of storing and disposing of radioactive waste in disused mines has been studied by a number of countries. However, the costs and benefits of such storage must be examined on a case by case basis. As the Commission has no information about such a use for mines in Albania, it cannot give any view as to their possible suitability for storage of radioactive waste. C 261 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
It is not possible to predict any potential impact on public health of storing radioactive waste in Albanian mines without information about the mines, the quantities and nature of any waste involved and the technologies being used to ensure its safe management.
(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992.
(2001/C 261 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0579/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: Water which is unfit to drink in Andalusia
The regional government of Andalusia (Spain) has itself admitted that the water supplied to more than two hundred thousand people is either constantly or sporadically unfit to drink. A total of 166 communities, most of them in the provinces of Almería and Granada, suffered problems of this nature in 1999.
This surprising and alarming admission on the part of the Andalusian Government highlights the stark reality that even today the Community can be faced with situations such as this, in which a large number of people find themselves without access to drinking water.
Will the Commission say how, given the Community provisions in this regard, a situation can possibly arise in which a large number of people find themselves without access to drinking water? What urgent measures would it be prepared to endorse with a view to ridding the Community of this vestige of underdevelopment as soon as possible?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(25 April 2001)
The Commission was not aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.
The piece of Community environment legislation which might be applicable in this case is Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consump- tion. (1)
It should be pointed out that Directive 80/778/EEC is to be replaced by Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998, (2) the deadline for the transposition of which expired on 25 December 2000. The Member States must apply the provisions of the new Directive by 25 December 2003 at the latest.
The two Directives referred to above lay down requirements regarding the quality of water intended for human consumption, and require the Member States to take steps to ensure they are met.
The information provided by the Honourable Member does not enable the Commission to deliver an opinion as to whether Community law is being complied with. The Commission is willing to receive additional information on the matter, such as the names of the municipalities concerned, in order to determine whether the Community environment law applicable in this case is being fully complied with.
(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980. (2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/151
(2001/C 261 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: The Year of Languages and mobility amongst language teachers
Forty-three projects to which the Commission will be contributing funding in the region of € 17 million have been selected to mark the Year of Languages organised by the European Union in 2001.
There is a feeling that preference ought to be given to those projects geared towards mobility amongst language teachers, so as to enable the latter to move to other Community Member States and pursue the different approaches to language teaching.
Will the Commission say which of the selected projects are geared towards facilitating mobility amongst language teachers across the European Union, and in what way it intends to encourage an increase in both the number of language teachers and their mobility, so as to enable them to teach languages anywhere in the Community?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(15 May 2001)
During the first selection round for projects financed under the European Year of Languages 2001, forty- three projects were selected, with a total grant funding of € 1,7 million (and not 17 million) Euros. More projects will be funded under the second selection round.
The objectives of the European Year of Languages are to raise awareness of the richness of linguistic diversity, to encourage multilingualism and life long learning of languages and to disseminate information on this field. These objectives are reflected in the areas of action for proposals, which are laid down in the Call for Proposals for the European Year (1). Moreover, the purpose of the funding available under the European Year of languages is to complement, and not to duplicate, funding available under other actions and programmes. It would therefore not have been appropriate to fund teacher mobility, which is already funded in other ways.
In particular, since 1990, through the Lingua and Socrates programmes, the Commission has invested significant amounts in the training and mobility of teachers of a foreign language. It has done this in three main ways:
by encouraging teacher training institutions to work in partnership across Europe to produce quality teacher training materials and courses; since 1991, almost € 22 million has been spent to co-fund these projects;
by giving grants to individual teachers to enable them to follow an in-service training course abroad; between 1991 and 1999, a total of 53 600 foreign language teachers received an average grant of € 1 000 each; and
by funding assistantships abroad for future teachers of a foreign language; between 1996 and 1999, € 13,2 million was allocated to this action and over 2 800 future foreign language teachers undertook Lingua Assistantships.
Further information is available in all eleven Community languages on the Commission’s ‘Learning Languages’ web site at http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/languages/es/index.html
In addition, the Leonardo da Vinci Programme supports exchanges of one to six weeks between the business sector on the one hand, and language vocational training establishments on the other, for the benefit of language trainers and mentors. C 261 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
The Socrates programme’s Arion action enables education professionals to travel abroad to study other countries’ educational systems and approaches to common issues. In 2000-2001, 15 Arion study visits addressing some 180 education specialists and decision makers were scheduled. A similar number of events will take place in 2001-2002.
(1) DG EAC 66/00.
(2001/C 261 E/176) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0584/01 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(21 February 2001)
Subject: Aquaculture developments at Lough Swilly, Co Donegal, an SAC and an SPA, and at Kenmare Bay, Co. Kerry, an SAC
Referring to complaints P20/4543 and 2000/5032, SG(2000) A/13568 concerning the potential negative environmental impacts arising from aquaculture expansions within the Lough Swilly and Kenmare Bay areas protected under EU law: Habitats (92/43 (1)) and Wild Birds (79/409 (2)) Directives. Does the Commission consider such developments in protected areas to be in breach of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives?
What has the Commission done to rectify the situation or what does it intend to do?
Ireland has been given substantial EU structural funds to expand its aquaculture/fisheries industry, and applicants can also avail themselves of an EU aquaculture grants scheme. Could the Commission state how much EU money has been earmarked for developments at Lough Swilly and in the Kenmare Bay area?
Does the Commission intend to put pressure on and/or suspend payments relating to these developments?
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Aquaculture per se is not prohibited within Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds or within areas proposed for protection under Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. However, these Directives set out a number of procedural and other safeguards which must be respected where aquaculture has or is likely to have significant effects.
The Commission has received detailed information from complainants in relation to aquaculture expansion in Lough Swilly, and this information is currently under consideration. Pending the conclusion of the Commission’s consideration, it would be premature to outline what action the Commission intends to take.
As regards Kenmare Bay, the Commission has recently requested the complainant to furnish more information under a standard request for supplementary information employed in relation to complaints concerning threats to SPAs and sites proposed under Directive 92/43/EEC. The response of the complai- nant is awaited. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/153
In the operational programmes for the period 2000-2006 for the Border, Midland and Western region (which includes Lough Swilly) and the Southern and Eastern region (which includes Kenmare Bay), the contributions from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) for aquaculture are € 16,07 mil- lion and € 9,61 million respectively.
Both programmes detail their commitment to respect national and Community environment legislation including Directives 79/409/EEC (conservation of wild birds) and 92/43/EEC (conservation of natural habitats) and intend to vet projects by means of Environmental Impact Assessments.
Promotors seeking FIFG funding submit their requests to the Irish authorities which select those that meet the criteria laid down in the programmes and programme compliments for the period 2000-2006 (including compliance with environmental regulations). These projects are then submitted to a selection board appointed by the minister for final approval. The monitoring committees, with representatives from both national and regional authorities, (including environmental ones) as well as from the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, are informed of the projects selected for financing and supervise the implementation of the programmes.
As implementation of the programmes has only recently started, it is too early to determine yet whether aquaculture projects in the Lough Swilly and Kenmare Bay areas will be financed by the FIFG.
(2001/C 261 E/177) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0587/01 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(21 February 2001)
Subject: Refusal to let property to foreign nationals in Berlin
The Gemeinnützige Siedlungs und Wohnungsbauesellschaft Berlin (Berlin Community Residence and Building Association), belonging to the Land of Berlin, has rejected an application for a flat by an Iranian couple on the grounds that it only concludes long-term leases and is unable to consider applicants who have only limited term-residence permits for the Federal Republic of Germany.
Does the Commission consider that it is compatible with the principle of freedom of movement in the European Union for citizens of other countries holding a valid residence permit to be denied the right to accommodation in Germany because they are only in the country for a fixed period?
If not, what will the Commission propose that the German government do to ensure that the principle of freedom of movement is fully implemented in the Federal Republic of Germany?
Does the Commission consider that it is compatible with Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Union to deny the right of accommodation to persons holding a lawful residence permit in an EU Member State?
If so, on what grounds?
Does the Commission consider it compatible with Articles 21 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to deny the right of accommodation to persons holding a lawful residence permit in an EU Member State?
If so, on what grounds? C 261 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(10 April 2001)
According to the information provided by the Honourable Member, the reason for refusing to grant access to public housing to the third country nationals in the case in question was the absence of a permanent residence permit of the applicants involved.
Under current Community law, there is no Community instrument, which regulates the access of third country nationals to public housing (1). The October 1999 Tampere European Council stressed that the Union must ensure fair treatment of third country nationals who reside legally on the territory of its Member States. A more vigorous integration policy should aim at granting them rights and obligations comparable to those of Union citizens. It should also enhance non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural life and develop measures against racism and xenophobia. The implementation of this objective is the subject of a legislative agenda, specified in the Justice and Home Affairs Scoreboard (2), which the Commission presented to the Parliament and to the Council in March 2000.
The proposals which are envisaged by the Commission encompass measures on the admission and the rights and obligations of specific groups of third country nationals (long-term residents, workers, self employed persons, students, …). These instruments will pursue the aim of ensuring equality of treatment between third country nationals and nationals of the Member State concerned in a broad range of areas including access to housing. Rights of third country nationals will be differentiated according to the length of stay and the most coherent set of rights will be attributed to long-term resident third country nationals. This would be in line with the objectives set in Tampere and also with the idea, expressed by the Commission in its November 2000 ‘Communication on a Community Immigration Policy’ (3), that the rights enjoyed by third country nationals may be incremental and related to the length of stay.
As regards Article 13 of the EC Treaty, this provision allows the Community to take action to combat discrimination but it has no direct effect. It therefore does not grant individuals any right which can be enforced before national courts or the Court of Justice.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (4), which has been proclaimed at the Nice European Council, is an instrument to verify respect for fundamental rights by the institutions and the Member States when they act under Union law. In the absence of Community legislation addressing specifically the access of third country nationals to public housing, the criticised German practice cannot be considered to conflict with the provisions of the Charter.
(1) With the exception of third country members of the family of a citizen of the Union having exercised his right to freedom of movement. (2) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament Scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of ‘Freedom, security and justice’ in the European Union; (COM(2000) 167 final); (updated by the Biannual update (second half of 2000)) (COM(2000) 782 final). (3) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament on a Community immigration policy (COM(2000) 757 final). (4) OJ C 364, 18.12.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0592/01 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: Applicability of European-approved specification EN1317 for safety barriers
Could the Commission comment on the enforceability of specification EN1317 in relation to road safety barriers in EU Member States? Are there any special issues relating to the United Kingdom, given difficulties experienced by Sistema Construction (UK) Limited in selling to the UK Highways Agency, which apparently apply a separate national standard? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/155
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(8 May 2001)
Where the public authorities of a Member State procure goods, works or services, there is an obligation to comply with the Community directives on public procurement. More specifically, in the case of the procurement of road safety barriers by the British Highways Agency, there is an obligation to comply with Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993, co-ordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (1).
Directive 93/36/EEC imposes a broad range of requirements, including an obligation for Community-wide advertising, the selection of candidates based on specified criteria and the use of non-discriminatory technical criteria in any contract documentation. As regards the latter requirement, Directive 93/36/EEC states that where European standards exist, then as a general rule public authorities must specify their requirements by reference to those standards. There are a number of exceptions to this rule, including where the European standard does not contain provision for establishing conformity of a product to the relevant standard and, in certain circumstances only, where use of European standards would oblige the contracting authority to acquire supplies which are incompatible with equipment already in use. Deroga- tions from the general rule have to be interpreted restrictively.
The European Norm (EN) 1317 is designed to establish a European standard for road restraint systems and contains six parts. Part 1 concerns terminology and general test criteria for test methods of road restraint systems. Part 2 deals with performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for safety barriers. Part 3 addresses performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for crash cushions. Parts 1, 2 and 3 have been approved by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) as European Standards. Parts 4, 5 and 6 of EN 1317 which concern terminals and transitions of safety barriers, durability and evaluation of road restraint system conformity and pedestrian parapets, are awaiting approval by CEN and are formally not yet European Standards.
An investigation has begun in another Member State concerning its use of a standard which would appear to conflict with EN 1317. A number of questions have been raised with that Member State which has been asked to justify why it did not specify its requirements in procurement contract documentation by reference to the relevant European Standard. The investigation has only recently begun and the Commi- ssion has not yet received the Member State’s reply.
The Commission does not have specific information concerning the United Kingdom’s use or otherwise of EN 1317 in relation to the procurement of road safety barriers. The Commission now intends to write to the United Kingdom authorities in this respect.
(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
(2001/C 261 E/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0593/01 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: Mutual recognition of educational qualifications within the European Union
Further to an enquiry from my constituent, John Spencer, who lives at 68 Plains Field, Beckers Green, Braintree, Essex, CM7 3PD, is the Commission aware that this person was not given equal treatment as a teacher in Austria, despite his attainment of a Post-Graduate Certificate in Education from the University of Cambridge, in contravention of Council Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (incorporated in 294A0103(38) (2) and 294A0103(57) (3))? C 261 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Will the Commission investigate this case and determine whether John Spencer’s rights under Directive 89/ 48/EEC have been breached?
(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16. (2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 206. (3) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 371.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(22 May 2001)
The Commission is not aware of the case of Mr John Spencer. If the Commission is to take up the matter with the Austrian authorities and to investigate this case it needs more information. The Commission therefore plans to write to Mr Spencer directly to ask him for the relevant documents and information.
(2001/C 261 E/180) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0596/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: The Primarolo Group
1. Does the Primarolo Group still exist?
2. Does it continue to hold meetings? If so please could the Commission give details of the future meetings scheduled, including date and venue.
3. The Code of Conduct Group submitted its final report in November and must therefore have fulfilled the remit granted it by the Council in January 1998. If the Code of Conduct Group is still functioning, could the Commission explain why, given that the task assigned to the Group by the Council has now been completed?
4. What further remit has been granted to the Code of Conduct Group to enable it to extend its activities beyond the scope of the Council resolution of January 1998? What further tasks has the Group been given? Which Council meeting agreed to grant the Code of Conduct Group a New mandate and remit?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(2 April 2001)
The Code of Conduct Group (1) was established by the Ecofin Council of 9 March 1998 (2) to assess the tax measures that may fall within the scope of the Code of Conduct for business taxation (3). Accordingly, the Code of Conduct Group is a Council Group that was set up to operate within the framework of the Council. Therefore any questions concerning its work, mandate or remit should be addressed to the Council, not to the Commission.
(1) In common parlance and notably in the press coverage the Code of Conduct Group (business taxation) has often been referred to as ‘the Primarolo Group’. (2) Ecofin Council conclusions of 9 March 1998 (OJ C 99, 1.4.1998). (3) Ecofin Council conclusions of 1 December 1997 (OJ C 2, 6.1.1998). 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/157
(2001/C 261 E/181) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0598/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(2 March 2001)
Subject: Referendum on independence for the Faeroe Isles
The Danish Government is threatening to suspend the subsidy it pays to the Faeroe Isles with immediate effect if the Faeroese people support their government’s plan for independence. The Danish Government is uttering this threat in order to thwart the Faeroese Government’s plan to achieve independence in 2012 or thereabouts.
On Saturday, 26 May 2001, the Kallsberg Government will be submitting its plan to the Faeroese people in a referendum. The proposal seeks a gradual transition towards independence, together with a systematic reduction in the Danish subsidy. A final decision would be taken in 2012 on whether or not the Faeroe Isles should become independent after 600 years of Danish rule.
1. What is the Council’s view of the Danish Government’s threat to suspend the subsidy it pays to the Faeroe Isles with immediate effect if the Faeroese people support their government’s plan for indepen- dence?
2. Does the Council feel that this threat is consistent with the principles of good governance? If so, what arguments can the Council advance in order to reconcile this threat with the principles of good governance?
Reply
(30 May 2001)
The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it has no competence to reply to questions concerning the domestic policy of a Member State of the European Union.
(2001/C 261 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0604/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Council
(2 March 2001)
Subject: Community police officers whose nationality is not that of the Member State in which they serve
Among the innovations introduced in recent times by various Member States in the area of policing, the concept of community police officers stands out as one which has resulted in increased security for the public notably in the urban periphery.
For a variety of reasons, certain urban areas have a large foreign community made up of EU citizens.
Does the Council consider that in the interest of the approachability and empathy which community police officers should maintain vis-à-vis the community they are supposed to protect, police cooperation programmes should be initiated between the police forces of different Member States to enable police officers from the Member States concerned to assist in local community policing in areas with a large foreign community of EU citizens?
Reply
(30 May 2001)
1. The European Police Chiefs Operational Task Force, at its meeting in Paris on 14 and 15 September 2000, highlighted similarities in approach between the various community policing methods which exist C 261 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
in Europe. All the police forces in the Member States share a willingness to learn from each other for community policing.
It was considered appropriate to:
develop study missions on the principles and practicalities of community policing;
create a documentary base in order to capitalise on experience and practice;
hold meetings on topics central to community policing.
2. In its Decision of 22 December 2000 establishing a European Police College (1) the Council assigned to this College responsibility for disseminating best practice and research findings [Article 7(e)].
3. During 2001 France will organise an exchange and training session on community policing for police officers in the field.
(1) OJ L 336, 30.12.2000, p. 1.
(2001/C 261 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0606/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: European Union campaign to combat child deaths caused by accidents
Accidents are the main cause of child deaths in the developed countries and a UNICEF report has estimated that 20 000 children will die as a result of accidents by the end of this year. Injuries caused by accidents are responsible for 40 % of deaths among children aged from one to 14 in the OECD countries.
The most frequent causes of fatal injuries to children are road accidents, drowning, burns, falls and poisoning.
In view of these alarming figures and bearing in mind the campaigns conducted by the EU against other scourges affecting our society, such as cancer or tobacco, does the Commission not think it should launch a forceful Community-wide campaign to raise public awareness of the risks to children, so as to bring about a sharp reduction in the alarming number of accidents of this kind?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(23 April 2001)
The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about the very high number of children aged one to fourteen who are killed in accidents, particularly in road accidents. Under the Community Action Programme on Injury Prevention the development of a Community policy is on the way. In setting up such a policy the Commission, together with the Member States, will develop as one of the fundamental aspects of the prevention of accidents an awareness building strategy with a view to reducing fatal accidents involving children.
Furthermore, the protection of children and other ‘vulnerable road users’ has been a feature of the Commission’s road safety policy since the early 1990’s. The Commission is currently preparing its 3rd Road Safety Action Plan which will cover the period 2002-2010. Protection of children against accidents and education to prevent accidents will be addressed in this document. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/159
(2001/C 261 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0609/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: Greek-Turkish agreement to construct new natural gas pipelines under the Inogate Umbrella Agreement
An agreement was reached recently between the Greek company DEPA and the Turkish company BOTAS to build a bi-directional natural gas pipeline linking the broader Caspian Sea region with consumer countries in Europe under the Inogate Umbrella Agreement. In accordance with the analytical memo- randum accompanying this agreement, the two countries are committed to creating a joint body to monitor the project, draw up a feasibility study and seek funding for the construction of the pipeline. Will the Commission say:
1. Can it provide details concerning the agreement in question and the contribution it will make towards making the European Union self-sufficient in energy?
2. Do any estimates exist regarding the route this pipeline is likely to take?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(20 April 2001)
The Commission can confirm that under the Inogate programme (Interstate Oil and Gas Transport to Europe) a cooperation agreement has been concluded between DEPA (Greece) and BOTAS (Turkey) to study interconnections between the Greek and Turkish gas networks at an initial stage and subsequently the extension of the project to neighbouring Balkan countries. This project to interconnect gas networks makes provision for an extension to Italy and the principle of East-West and West-East supplies.
Greece and Turkey are signatories to the Inogate Umbrella Agreement (the institutional framework for the establishment of these oil and gas transportation systems), as are the following countries: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Romania, Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria et Croatia.
The Commission regards this agreement as important for meeting the growing demand for gas in Europe, especially the internal market of an enlarged Community, and for the security and diversity of supplies. This interconnection will offer the European gas market supplies from the Caspian Sea area, Central Asia and Iran via Turkey and from the Maghreb and Mashreq via Italy and Turkey (southern link of network) in addition to traditional gas suppliers (Russia, Algeria and Norway).
The engineering studies to trace the path of the pipeline have not yet started. The Commission is engaged in talks with the Greek and Turkish authorities and companies concerning the financing of feasibility studies under Community financial and technical assistance instruments.
(2001/C 261 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0614/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: Football transfer fees
It is said that a small number of complaints started the current football transfer fees debate. C 261 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
How many complaints had the Commission received when it started the process of talking to the various footballing authorities?
How many complaints has it received in total?
Who made these complaints and why?
How many representatives received by the Commission have asked for the current system to be maintained?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Four formal complaints gave rise to the proceedings opened against the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) in December 1998. Subsequently, the Commission received a further formal complaint.
By September 2000, when the Commission stepped up its discussions with the football authorities, two complaints, both concerning the same case, had already been withdrawn following a settlement with FIFA.
As a matter of principle the Commission is unable to disclose the names of complainants in matters concerning procedures relating to application of the competition rules of the EC Treaty.
The complaints concerned two aspects of the FIFA rules on international transfers: a total prohibition of unilateral termination of contracts and payment of compensation for transfer at the end of the contractual period in situations not covered by the judgment in Bosman.
The Commission has received many representations advocating the retention of the current FIFA rules. It has also received many others urging that those rules be amended.
After a meeting on 5 March 2001, FIFA, in agreement with the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), undertook to make changes in the very near future to its 1997 rules on the status and transfer of players in accordance with principles that have been made public.
(2001/C 261 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0619/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(2 March 2001)
Subject: Democratic control of European commercial policy
There is in effect no democratic control of the EU’s commercial policy. The real power and decision- making centre is located in the fifteen national civil servants of the 133 committee. This committee is named after Article 133 of the EC treaty and was set up by the Coumcil to support the Commission.
Commissioner Lamy has proposed a substantial increase in Parliament’s say in terms of commercial policy (P-3674/00) (1). He is aware that referring to the role played in the Council by the governments which are accountable to their own national parliaments is no remedy for the lack of democratic control. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/161
This is why Mr Lamy has called for parliamentary control at European level. This would increase not only the duty of responsibility with regard to commercial policy but also the effectiveness of that policy, because the trading partners would then realise that the Commission has full support in its negotiations from the democratically elected representatives of the European people.
Does the Council subscribe to the Commission’s view that parliamentary control at European level would not only increase the duty of responsibility with regard to commercial policy but also the effectiveness of that policy, because the trading partners would then realise that the Commission has full support in its negotiations from the democratically elected representatives of the European people?
If so, what action will the Council take to ensure full parliamentary control of European commercial policy?
If not, what is the Council’s reason for not seeking full parliamentary control at European level despite the Commission’s arguments?
(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 190.
Reply
(30 May 2001)
The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his Written Questions E-4034/00, E-4036/00 and E-4037/00.
(2001/C 261 E/187) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/01 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: Respect for regional and minority languages
In reply to a previous question (E-3702/00) (1) on the diversity of languages in the European Union, Commissioner Reding said that respect for linguistic and cultural diversity was one of the main principles of the Union.
The Commissioner also announced that she would inquire into ways of protecting and promoting regional and minority languages via a special action programme.
1. When exactly will this inquiry be completed, and when can an action programme be launched?
2. Is the Commission prepared to spell out the Copenhagen criteria’s rather vague description of ‘respect for minorities’ so that minority languages can be respected and protected?
3. What regulatory action can the Commission take against Member States if the languages legislation in force in such countries is used only as an additional accession guarantee and if there is absolutely no intention of affording additional guarantees for the minority in question?
(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 119. C 261 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(15 May 2001)
1. The European Year of Languages will give rise to many events and debates throughout 2001 on matters relating to European linguistic diversity, particularly regional and minority languages. The Commission plans to draw lessons from all these initiatives and discussions, and to arrive at conclusions as early as next year.
2. The criteria for Membership laid down at the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 include ‘the respect for and protection of minorities’. In assessing progress made by the candidate countries with regard to this criterion, the Commission devotes particular attention to the respect for, and the implementation of, the various principles laid down in the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, including those related to the use of minority languages.
3. As of 1997, the Commission has regularly assessed progress made by the candidate countries in meeting the Copenhagen criteria, first in its 1997 Opinions, and subsequently in its Regular Reports adopted in the autumn of 1998, 1999 and 2000 respectively.
In order to help the candidate countries remedy the specific weaknesses and shortcomings identified in the Regular Reports, the Community has established an Accession Partnership for each of the candidate countries. These Accession Partnerships put forward short and medium-term priorities for each country to fulfil the accession criteria. They also indicate the financial assistance available from the Community in support of these priorities and the conditions attached to that assistance. They are updated on a regular basis.
The regular assessment of progress made by the candidate countries in meeting the requirements set by the Copenhagen political criteria, supported by the Accession Partnerships, has led to positive developments in all candidate countries, also as regards respect for minority rights and the protection of minorities, including the use of minority languages. The Commission continues its work in this direction.
(2001/C 261 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/01 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(2 March 2001)
Subject: Belgian visas
The injudicious issuing of Belgian visas is a matter which needs to be looked at under the third pillar of the European Union (justice and home affairs), in particular because the temporary right of residence in the Belgian Federation automatically confers access to all Schengen countries. Such rights of residence are worth their weight in gold to criminals and they throw the immigration sector wide open to corruption.
Last year Belgium issued some 9 500 visas to Moroccan applicants. Roughly 88 % of these visas (for both short-term and long-term periods) were issued by the Aliens Service in Brussels, despite an opinion to the contrary from the consular services in Morocco. Hence, despite the fact that the applications fail to satisfy the criteria, such opinion is systematically ignored.
Some applicants have openly said that they have no intention of travelling to Belgium, but rather to one of the other Schengen countries where the issuing of visas is subject to stricter rules.
This is why the opinion of the consular services is negative, but the Aliens Service invariably replies that the visa still has to be issued to the applicant. It is feared that more and more traffickers in humans will try to enter the EUJ via Morocco. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/163
This will render null and void action by the EU to stop lucrative routes for human trafficking.
Is the Council aware of the injudicious issuing of Belgian visas?
If so, what action has the Council taken to induce the Belgian Federation to find a solution to this problem?
If not, will the Council seek information about the fraud involving Belgian visas, given the importance it has for the third pillar of European Union (justice and home affairs) and the policy of the Schengen countries?
(2001/C 261 E/189) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0622/01
by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(2 March 2001)
Subject: Belgian visas
The injudicious issuing of Belgian visas is a matter which needs to be looked at under the third pillar of the European Union (justice and home affairs), in particular because the temporary right of residence in the Belgian Federation automatically confers access to all Schengen countries. Such rights of residence are worth their weight in gold to criminals and they throw the immigration sector wide open to corruption.
Last year Belgium issued some 9 500 visas to Moroccan applicants. Roughly 88 % of these visas (for both short-term and long-term periods) were issued by the Aliens Service in Brussels, despite an opinion to the contrary from the consular services in Morocco. Hence, despite the fact that the applications fail to satisfy the criteria, such opinion is systematically ignored.
Some applicants have openly said that they have no intention of travelling to Belgium, but rather to one of the other Schengen countries where the issuing of visas is subject to stricter rules.
This is why the opinion of the consular services is negative, but the Aliens Service invariably replies that the visa still has to be issued to the applicant. It is feared that more and more traffickers in humans will try to enter the EUJ via Morocco.
This will render null and void action by the EU to stop lucrative routes for human trafficking.
In view of the facts set out above, has the Council urged the Belgian Federation to include fundamental preventive measures in its visa policy, such as a rotation system for sensitive posts, dual checks and the screening of officials?
If so, when did the Council make this request to the Belgian Federation?
If not, why has the Council not yet urged the inclusion of fundamental preventive measures in the Belgian Federation’s visa policy, given the importance it has for the third pillar of European Union (justice and home affairs) and the policy of the Schengen countries? Will the Council now urge the Belgian Federation to take such measures? C 261 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0621/01 and E-0622/01
(30 May 2001)
The Council would inform the Honourable Member that with the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, matters relating to immigration, visas and asylum fall within the Community’s sphere of competence under Title IV of the TEC. It is therefore for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to verify whether Member States fulfil their obligations in respect of those matters.
(2001/C 261 E/190) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0623/01 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(22 February 2001)
Subject: EU decentralised bodies and combating unemployment
Unemployment in Europe is a factor which has adverse effects on social well-being and pulls apart the fabric of society. In certain countries, such as Greece, the unemployment rate is increasing significantly (and is currently in excess of 12 %), while there are few visible signs of a reversal of this trend. The EU set up the ‘European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training’ (Cedefop), which has been operating since the end of 1995 in Thessaloniki and is funded by the Community budget. The activities of the ‘European Training Foundation’ (ETF), located in Turin, are similar; it also deals with professional training, is active in Eastern European countries and also receives handsome funds from the Community budget.
Could the Commission say what specific contributions these decentralised bodies make to combating unemployment in the EU Member States and the applicant countries? What is the breakdown of personnel in terms of nationality (for permanent, temporary and local staff members) in these two bodies and how many staff work there in total? To what extent has Cedefop’s administration promoted the city of Thessaloniki by organising large-scale meetings and international conventions since 1995? What is the Commission’s position with regard to a possible merger of the two bodies’ similar activities, with a headquarters in Thessaloniki, which would enable Greece’s second city to receive the public attention which it merits and would save resources from the Community budget which are currently used to maintain expensive administrative structures in two different cities?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(24 April 2001)
Decisions concerning the location of the seat of Community Agencies are taken by the European Council. It was on the basis of a Decision of the European Council of October 1993 that the decision to transfer the European Centre for the development of vocational training (Cedefop) from Berlin to Thessaloniki was taken and the seats of nine new Community Agencies were agreed upon.
In addition, the Commission would like to underline that, although both Cedefop and the European Training Foundation cover the area of vocational training, their missions and objectives are not the same. The European Training Foundation acts within the external relations policy and programme framework of the Community to provide policy guidance to third countries. Cedefop provides research, comparative analyses and exchange of information to various actors in the field of vocational education and training in the Member States. Close cooperation exists between the two Agencies to ensure complementarity and synergy and exchange of information.
The Community’s employment strategy emphasises human resource development and more specifically vocational training as an active measure for the integration into labour markets. As such, the two Agencies, through their vocational education and training activities, contribute, directly or indirectly in the countries in which they are active, to combating unemployment. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/165
The two Agencies have a separate geographical coverage and their missions and tasks are quite different. The European Training Foundation supports, through policy guidance and project management, the reform of vocational education and management training in over forty partner countries located in the Mediterranean region, the Western Balkans, the New Independent States and Mongolia and the candidate countries. The Foundation is currently preparing monographs to provide in-depth studies on vocational training and employment services in support of the Employment Policy Reviews and in preparation for European Social Fund (ESF) intervention, in the candidate countries.
Cedefop is the Community’s centre for information and expertise in vocational education and training. The Centre supports the development of vocational education and training in the Member states and in the European Economic Area (EEA) countries with which it has agreements. Since 2000 Cedefop has carried out several studies in the area of ‘supporting employment and competitiveness’, which is one of its four thematic priorities for the period 2000-2003.
There are no permanent staff at the European Training Foundation. Details of staff (permanent, temporary, local) actually employed at present in the two organisations are given below by nationality.
Table: Staff (permanent, temporary, local) by nationality
Nationality Cedefop ETF B716 DK 2 D1412 GR 30 4 E23 F1412 IRL 7 4 I329 L1 NL 3 8 N1 A15 P21 FIN 1 3 S2 UK 9 19 TOTAL 94 121
Table: Total number of staff
Category Cedefop ETF Officials 31 Temporary agents 50 110 Local 13 11 Other (includes national experts on secondment and auxiliary agents) 13 5 TOTAL 107 126 C 261 E/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Cedefop has organised 937 conferences and meetings in the period 1995-2000 with 19 242 participants. Approximately 55 % of these were organised in Thessaloniki. For the years 1995 to 1999, when the provisional rented premises of the Centre did not offer all necessary facilities for large-scale meetings, a considerable number of them (45 %) had to take place elsewhere. Since the beginning of 2000, 75 % of the meetings and conferences are held in Thessaloniki and take place in the Centre’s premises, which offer state-of- the-art infrastructure and equipment.
(2001/C 261 E/191) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0626/01 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: Hypersensitivity
Has the Commission any figures available to it of the increase in the number of people with the symptoms of hypersensitivity (i.e. asthma, rhinitis and eczema etc.), as a result of exposure to perfumed products? In view of the dramatic increase in the number of people with allergic reactions to certain perfumes and fragrances, has the Commission considered amending the relevant Community legislation to ban the use of those materials that are known to cause hypersensitivity?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(18 May 2001)
Consumers are exposed to many products containing fragrance ingredients or aroma which may cause sensibilisation such as household products, cosmetic and hygiene products or food. Depending on the type of products concerned these ingredients may be inhaled, applied on the skin or ingested. The analysis of the problem of fragrance allergy would request to consider the various sources of exposure.
On 8 December 1999, the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP) adopted an opinion on ‘Fragrance allergy in Consumers’. The report considered the problem of contact allergy caused by fragrance ingredients and, based on dermatological data reflecting the clinical experience, identified initially 24 fragrance ingredients corresponding to the most frequently recognised allergens. Some studies showed that around 8 % of tested eczema patients are sensitised to fragrance ingredients. Investigations of contact allergy in the general population are difficult to perform and for this reasons few studies exist. However, from studies performed on sectors of the population, it is estimated that the frequency of contact allergy to fragrance ingredients in the general population is around 1 or 2 %. A rising trend of fragrance allergy among eczema patients has been demonstrated in some clinics in Europe. The SCCNFP considered necessary to provide additional information to sensitised consumers regarding the presence of these fragrance ingredients in cosmetic products to help them to avoid cosmetic products which contain these specific substances above a level which may elicit a skin reaction.
Experience with other skin allergens, such as certain preservatives or Nickel, has shown that a total ban is not necessary to control skin allergy. Ingredients of this type can be used safely provided they are restricted to safe levels and that sufficient information is given to sensitised consumers.
The Commission wants to address fragrance allergy in a meaningful manner. It considers that it is not appropriate to ban the substances simply because they may cause allergy to some people but that it is crucial to inform consumers of the presence of such ingredients in order for them to avoid products containing these ingredients. Therefore, for cosmetic products, Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1) could be amended in order to introduce a meaningful and unambiguous labelling for specific fragrance ingredients with a well-recognised potential to cause contact allergy in order to ensure adequate information for 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/167
sensitised consumers, by ensuring that these fragrance ingredients be mentioned in the list of ingredients. Furthermore, the SCCNFP is currently reviewing the scientific data on these ingredients in order to identify safe use levels which will be introduced into Directive 76/768/ECC.
(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(2001/C 261 E/192) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0628/01
by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: Harm to wearers of pacemakers from shop security systems
Patients wearing pacemakers have been warned by National Health Service Trusts in the UK that some security systems installed by high street shops, in the form of ‘walk-through’ gates, may pose a threat to the continued functioning of this vital aid.
What are the Commission’s views on making it compulsory that shops take responsibility for warning customers quite clearly that their system may pose a danger, before they enter the premises?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(11 May 2001)
To-date the Commission has not received any information on the warning by National Health Service Trusts in the United Kingdom that shop security systems may pose a threat to the continued functioning of pacemakers referred to by the Honourable Member. However, the Commission will request information on this warning and consider its implications with Member States.
The Commission raised the question with Member States during the Low Voltage Directive Working Party in June 1999, dealing with the safety of electrical appliances.
All Member States were asked if they had any reports of incidents relating to this and whether there was a need to consider taking preventive measures. No incidents were identified and, as a consequence, Member States were of the opinion that further legislation was unnecessary.
As outlined in the reply to written question E-1595/98 by Mrs Jackson (1), the problem is, to an extent, addressed in the European standard for pacemakers, issued by the European standardisation body Cenelec, which addresses the immunity of pacemakers to certain types of electromagnetic fields.
Therefore, at present, the Commission has no plans to impose additional legislation in this area.
(1) OJ C 13, 20.1.1999. C 261 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/193) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0632/01
by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(6 March 2001)
Subject: Regional Air Traffic Control Centre in Thessaloniki
On 17 November 1999 a cooperation agreement was signed between the governments of Greece, Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to set up a regional air traffic control centre in Thessaloniki. Such an initiative would markedly improve air travel conditions in the Balkans and in south-eastern Europe, since it has been acknowledged that the existence of a disproportionately large number of FIRs and air traffic control centres in the region is causing problems for strategic planning and the overall coordination of flights. Although the agreement has been welcomed by the relevant major international organisations (ICAO, Eurocontrol and IACA) as a model of regional cooperation in the field of air travel, this initiative has made no progress so far.
Will the Commission say:
Has it received any information about this particular issue and, if so, what information?
Is there any scope for funding this initiative and, if so, under which Community programme?
Have any requests been made so far for this kind of funding?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(24 April 2001)
The Commission has indeed received notification from the Greek Government that a regional cooperation agreement on air traffic control has been signed, and is therefore aware of the specific problems that this region of Europe currently faces in this matter.
At present, priority must go to air traffic control in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which can be described as being in a state of crisis, operating only thanks to the efforts of the stabilisation force (SFOR) and Croatia. Similarly, Kosovan airspace is still under the control of the International Security Force in Kosovo (KFOR). Clearly, a permanent solution must be rapidly found for the airspace of both regions, hence the urgent need for discussion of the matter at regional level. The cooperation between Greece, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania is an encouraging example of this.
As regards financial support, the construction of an air traffic control centre in Thessaloniki cannot be funded under the CARDS regulation, since Greece is not a beneficiary under that regulation.
There is little scope for any other Community funding. The strategic plan to prepare for the future extension of the trans-European Transport Network to candidate countries (TINA, opening the way to funding under Phare and ISPA, the Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession) does not apply to the countries covered by the regional cooperation agreement to which the Honourable Member refers. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/169
(2001/C 261 E/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0638/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council (8 March 2001)
Subject: Funding of text books
1. Please could the Council confirm whether any EU funds have been used to fund the following textbooks: Our Arabic Language Third Grade-Fifth Grade Part 2 Islamic Education Grades 3-9 Reader and Literary Texts Grades 4-8 Modern Arab History & Contemporary Problems Palestinian National Education Third Grade Islamic Culture Grades 5-8 Geography of the Arab
2. If so, which budget line was used to fund these projects?
3. Will the Council please undertake to ensure that no EU funding is used to fund textbooks which contain anti-Semitic statements?
Examples of such language, included in the above textbooks includes:
In many cases these Jews acted according to their known cunning and deceit and they incite wars Islamic education, 9th grade, p.78.
What can we do to rescue Jerusalem and to liberate it from the thieving enemy? Reader and Literary Texts, 8th grade, p.99.
I learn from this lesson: I believe that Jews are the enemies of the Prophets and the believers. Islamic education, 4th grade, Part one, p.67.
Reply (30 May 2001)
As a matter of principle the Council deplores the use of educational systems to promote intolerance and prejudice. It would, however, point out that the projects in support of the Palestinian authority are financed by the Commission which has in fact given a joint reply dated 12 December 2000 (to questions P-3612/00, P-3643/00 and E-3652/00) with regard to the funding of the production and distribution of school textbooks in the territory of the Palestinian Authority.
(2001/C 261 E/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0653/01 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission (6 March 2001)
Subject: Socio-economic study of the islands of the EU
On 24 October 2000, in response to oral question O-0102/00 on Article 158 of the EC Treaty and the status of islands, Commissioner Barnier undertook to request a socio-economic study of the islands of the EU in order to obtain as clear a picture as possible of the problems they face.
Can the Commission say what progress has been made on the study and whether the study’s findings will be made available in the second half of 2001, as it had hoped? C 261 E/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 2001)
The Commission has decided that the study on the Community’s island regions should comprise (a) assembly of the statistical indicators available for each island and island group and creation of a database, and (b) use of the base to make an objective situation analysis comparing and assessing the problems arising from island geography and the specific needs of the islands.
A call for tenders has been made (1). The Commission is now considering the twelve offers received in order to appoint a contractor.
The planned duration of the study is six months. The first interim findings should reach the Commission at the end of 2001. When complete the findings will be reported to Parliament.
(1) OJ S 248, 28.12.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0658/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(6 March 2001)
Subject: Lisbon European Council and the open method of co-ordination
The 2000 Lisbon European Council stated that ‘policies for combating social exclusion should be based on an open method of coordination combining national action plans and a Commission initiative for cooperation in this field to be presented by June 2000.’ What steps has the Commission taken towards presenting such an initiative and when exactly does it envisage making this presentation?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(2 May 2001)
In response to the mandate of the Lisbon European Council, the Commission adopted on 16 June 2000 a proposal for a decision of the Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme of Community action to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion (1). Article 137 (ex Article 118) of the EC Treaty (paragraph 2, subparagraphs 2 and 3) provides the legal basis. The aim of the proposal is to support transnational exchange of good practice and policy-oriented cooperation in the field of social inclusion. The initiative is expected to contribute to the commitment to make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty, and the open method of co-ordination. The active involvement of the Member States, regional and local levels of government, as well as the social partners and civil society is envisaged.
Further to the Parliament’s opinion on its first reading, the Commission adopted an amended proposal for this Decision on 24 November 2000 (2). The Council formally adopted a common position on 12 February 2001 (3) which, together with the Commission’s comments on it, has been transmitted to the Parliament for second reading.
(1) COM(2000) 368 final. (2) COM(2000) 796 final. (3) OJ C 93, 23.3.2001. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/171
(2001/C 261 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0659/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(6 March 2001)
Subject: Lisbon European Council and innovation
The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Council and the Commission, together with the Member States where appropriate to ‘introduce by June 2001 a European innovation scoreboard.’ Does the Commission believe this target will be met, and what evidence can it provide to support its view?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(11 May 2001)
In March 2000, the Lisbon European Council asked to make available, by June 2001, a ‘European Innovation Scoreboard’.
An initial version of this scoreboard was published as an annex to the Communication ‘Innovation in a knowledge driven economy’ adopted by the Commission on 20 September 2000 (1). It includes 16 indicators in four broad areas (human resources; creation of new knowledge; transmission and application of knowledge; innovation finance, outputs and markets) (2).
The informal conference of Industry Ministers in Manchester in February 2001 accentuated the Lisbon request:
The European Commission should further develop and present by June 2001 the European Innovation Scoreboard, taking into account both quantitative and qualitative aspects, and ensuring that data collection is rapid and appropriate.
The further development of the ‘European Innovation Scoreboard’ is well underway. The structure of the scoreboard will remain the same, but it is planned to make available more recent figures for 11 out of the 16 indicators. In the future, the availability of more up-to-date data is expected to be significantly enhanced by the agreement of the Member States to carry out the ‘Community Innovation Survey’ more frequently.
The June 2001 scoreboard should furthermore also present Trend data for 11 indicators. It will therefore go beyond the ‘snapshot’ character of the initial version. Qualitative aspects will be covered with reference to the work under the ‘European Trend Chart on Innovation’, a Commission project providing regular surveys of innovation policies in the Member States.
In the light of the above it is the view of the Commission that the ‘European Innovation Scoreboard’ will be available in line with the Lisbon request and schedule.
The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat available documents referring to the information requested.
(1) COM(2000) 567 final. (2) The draft version of the scoreboard is available from www.cordis.lu/trendchart. C 261 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0670/01
by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(8 March 2001)
Subject: German chemical weapons in Turkey
In mid-December 1999 the German Ministry of Defence admitted that it wanted to help Turkey construct a military chemicals laboratory. The project would have a ‘purely defensive function’. Yet the ‘Kennzeichen D’ programme on ZDF television has quoted military sources as maintaining that on 11 May 1999 the Turkish army was using chemical weapons on the Kurdish PKK movement. Twenty Kurds had apparently been killed. Research at the University of Munich also shows that the Turkish warheads on the chemical weapons used were supplied by the German firms Buck and Deyfag.
Fourteen months ago questions were tabled to the Commission, the Council and the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs to obtain clarity about these two issues. In its joint answer to written questions E-1203/00, E-1204/00 and E-1205/00 (1), the Council stated that the specific points made in the questions had not been raised in the Council or in any of the Council bodies. However, on 31 January 2001 the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs provided some information on the dubious export licence for German warheads: ‘The warheads, filled with tear gas, received a licence because of their use for purposes of law and order’.
In view of the dramatic events in Turkish prisons, the violations of human rights, the persistent use of chemical weapons in Kurdistan and the fact that the arms supplies are in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, I should like to ask: Does the Council subscribe to the Belgian Minister’s attitude towards the export licence for German warheads for Turkey (’The warheads, filled with tear gas, received a licence because of their use for purposes of law and order’)? If not, why not?
(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 146.
Reply
(30 May 2001)
All EU Member States as well as Turkey are States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC).
Article VIII of the Convention established the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) ‘to ensure the implementation of its provisions, including those for international verification of compliance with it’. All States Parties to the CWC are members of the OPCW. This is the organisation entrusted with the verification of compliance by States Parties with the provisions of the Convention.
Requests by a State Party for clarification on situations which may be considered ambiguous or which give rise to a concern about the possible non-compliance of another State Party with the Convention are processed in accordance with the provisions of Article IX of the Convention.
The specific issue referred to by the Honourable Member has not been raised within the Council or the Council bodies. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/173
(2001/C 261 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0673/01 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(26 February 2001)
Subject: Final decision on complaint concerning the Thessaloniki underground
In reply to my question on the Thessaloniki underground (H-0513/00) (1), the Commission said in June 2000 that ‘its services have finalised the examination of the second complaint on this case and is actually considering the next steps to be taken’ and in July replied to another of my questions (H-0566/00) (2), by saying ‘it is still considering the steps to be taken as regards the public procurement aspects’. In its most recent reply, in December 2000 (H-0875/00) (3), it states that ‘the Commission acquits itself of its duty as quickly and meticulously as possible’; nevertheless, the second complaint is still pending before it and once again it has not clarified or even sketched out what its final position on the issue will be.
Ten months after the Commission’s reply stating that it had completed its examination, and in view of the fact that the Ombudsman has already stated his findings, charging the Commission with mismanagement in connection with the first complaint, can the Commission indicate when it will at length come to a final decision on the second complaint, since I believe that there are signs of yet another case of mismanage- ment, due to the time-consuming procedures which have resulted in the stagnation of the underground project, despite the fact it is absolutely vital for the city?
(1) Written reply of 13.6.2000. (2) Written reply of 5.7.2000. (3) Oral reply of 13.12.2000.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(6 April 2001)
In its reply to the Honorable Member’s Oral Question H-875/00 during question time at Parliament’s December 2000 part-session, the Commission has stated that the second complaint concerning the concession contract for the construction and exploitation of the Thessaloniki Metro contains claims for violations of Community state aids and of public procurement provisions.
It was also stated that since the Greek government seemed not to have agreed with the concessionaire on all conditions concerning the financing of the project, no notification under Article 88 (3) (ex-Article 93) of the EC Treaty had reached the Commission so far. Since the situation has not changed in the meantime, the Commission is still not in a position to examine all facts of the case and to take a final decision assessing the complaint. According to the Commission’s information, a final decision by the Greek government on the acceptance of the new financing plan is still pending. In addition, in January 2001 the Greek authorities have contacted the Commission as the relevant concession contract might be subject to modifications due to the negotiations with the concessionaire. In those circumstances there is no point in coming to precipitated conclusions on the basis of data, affecting all aspects of the case, likely to be altered in the very near future.
It is the duty of the Commission to carefully analyse and take into consideration all such elements. Indeed, before taking any decision on the substance, the Commission has to be in a position to form a definitive view of all the relevant legal aspects of the case.
In addition, the recent report by the Ombudsman that the Honorable Member refers to did not find any mismanagement by the Commission on the timing issue and acknowledged, on the contrary, that such proceedings are inevitably time consuming. C 261 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0684/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(8 March 2001)
Subject: The common fisheries policy and illegal fishing: flags of convenience
One of the most pressing problems with which the open-sea fishery is currently faced concerns how to oblige countries which are not party to international fisheries organisations and whose fleets fish in waters not subject to the jurisdiction of coastal states to accept the regional fisheries organisations’ measures for the rational management and conservation of stocks. The still relatively undeveloped state of the international law of the sea means that vessels flying a flag of convenience, or even no flag at all, can fish in international waters in an irresponsible fashion, heedless of fish stocks or the marine environment, thus undermining the rational fish stock management schemes and measures for responsible fishing agreed by such regional organisations as NAFO, NEAFC or ICCAT. In its present state the law of the sea tends to prioritise member states’ sovereign rights and has given little encouragement to the right of intervention. The contracting parties to the international organisations are therefore taking an approach involving coercive measures based on indirect forms of pressure on vessels which do not comply with the organisations’ rules on stock management. Such measures are generally aimed at creating obstacles to the marketing of those vessels’ catches, and can include, for instance, transfer bans or bans on unloading in the contracting parties’ ports.
Can the Commission provide information on the conclusions of the ‘first technical consultation’ on illegal fishing held by the FAO in Rome from 2 to 6 October 2000, and state what position it took there on the problem of flags of convenience? Can it also provide information on the conclusions of the ‘second technical consultation’ on illegal fishing held by the FAO in Rome from 22 and 23 February 2001, and state what position it took there on the problem of flags of convenience?
Can the Commission provide information on the contents of the draft international plan to combat illegal fishing, especially as regards flags of convenience, and on the procedure and timetable for adoption?
In view of the persistence of the problem and the insufficient nature of the measures adopted to date, does the Commission not consider that the time has come to adopt a common strategy in all the international fisheries organisations in which the EU participates, with a view to seeking general and more effective solutions in the fight against flags of convenience and stateless vessels?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(24 April 2001)
During the two technical consultations as well as during the latest negotiations which ended in approval of the International Plan of Action against illegal fishing within the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the Community stressed the need to apply the existing instruments of international law as well as the need to fill the gaps in international law, particularly as regards access to port. It also stressed the responsibility of the flag State, while at the same time stressing the rights and obligations of the port State and the importing State. For the Community, the International Plan, although voluntary, is an important stage since it indicates a clear commitment on the part of the international Community to combat illegal fishing.
Regarding flags of convenience, the Commission continues to consider that a fundamental step would be the ratification of the Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas (approved by the FAO in November 1993) as well as the New York Agreement on Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (adopted in August 1995 and signed in December 1995 within the United Nations). These agreements establish the rights and obligations of the flag States regarding vessels (from identification to control). The Action Plan in fact takes elements of both agreements and indicates the need to adopt measures to prevent nationals fishing illegally, to apply sanctions for infringements and to introduce monitoring, control and surveillance from capture up to unloading. This Action Plan will have to be 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/175
applied as soon as possible by means of national action plans and regional and international measures. The Members of FAO are required to submit their measures to the next session of the Committee on Fisheries, in February 2003.
Between now and 2003, the Community will continue to act within the regional fishery organisations where there also is a clear will to cooperate to eliminate illegal fishing. The Action Plan also encourages greater cooperation between the various regional fishery organisations, both with regard to the exchange of information on vessels which commit offences and as regards the adoption of monitoring, control and surveillance measures designed to eliminate illegal fishing.
(2001/C 261 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(8 March 2001)
Subject: The common fisheries policy and illegal fishing: flags of convenience
One of the most pressing problems with which the open-sea fishery is currently faced concerns how to oblige countries which are not party to international fisheries organisations and whose fleets fish in waters not subject to the jurisdiction of coastal states to accept the regional fisheries organisations’ measures for the rational management and conservation of stocks. The still relatively undeveloped state of the international law of the sea means that vessels flying a flag of convenience, or even no flag at all, can fish in international waters in an irresponsible fashion, heedless of fish stocks or the marine environment, thus undermining the rational fish stock management schemes and measures for responsible fishing agreed by such regional organisations as NAFO, NEAFC or ICCAT. In its present state the law of the sea tends to prioritise member states’ sovereign rights and has given little encouragement to the right of intervention. The contracting parties to the international organisations are therefore taking an approach involving coercive measures based on indirect forms of pressure on vessels which do not comply with the organisations’ rules on stock management. Such measures are generally aimed at creating obstacles to the marketing of those vessels’ catches, and can include, for instance, transfer bans or bans on unloading in the contracting parties’ ports.
Can the Commission provide information on the data which it possesses on infringements of this nature (nationality of the infringing vessels, number of vessels, areas of operation, ports used for unloading, etc)? Can it also state whether it is carrying out or intends to carry out a detailed study of these problems?
What solutions to these problems does the Commission propose as things stand?
What action can be taken to prevent fish illegally caught under flags of convenience from entering the EU market?
Is the Commission considering applying solutions proposed by it in the past for similar types of problem, such as the transport of polluting goods by sea using flags of convenience?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(24 April 2001)
The Commission is aware of the problem which flags of convenience pose in relation to sustainable, responsible fishing.
In the Commission’s view, however, international law and Regional Fisheries Organisations constitute the appropriate framework for regulating fisheries activity. The Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas (approved by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in November 1993) would therefore be the most effective C 261 E/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
instrument for obtaining the requisite data on vessels. Ratification of the New York Agreement relating to the conservation and management of straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (adopted in August 1995 and signed in December 1995 at the United Nations) would also help to regulate activity on the high seas and would require greater international cooperation by non-member countries and countries not party to Regional Fisheries Organisations. Accordingly, the Commission would above all like to see both Agreements ratified as soon as possible so that they can be applied.
With regard to the Honourable Member’s question about infringements, by means of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2740/1999 of 21 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1447/1999 establishing a list of types of behaviour which seriously infringe the rules of the common fisheries policy (1) the Commission will obtain for the first time the requisite information, which Member States will notify to it. The Commission will then present to the Council, the European Parliament and in the Advisory Committee on Fisheries a general overview by Member State of the information received. As regards non-Community vessels, there is a compliance committee at most Regional Fisheries Organisations (e.g. at the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) and the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)).
All the relevant Community rules, and particularly Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (2), are intended to reinforce monitoring of fisheries activity from when fish are caught to when they are sold. The Commission and the Member States have played an active role in the international action plan against unlawful, unregulated and undeclared fishing; the plan provides for various ways of stamping out unlawful fishing such as each state monitoring its nationals, monitoring and surveillance of fisheries activity from outset to landing, and application of international market measures. The plan stresses above all the responsibility of the flag state, as well as that of the port state and the importing state.
With regard to unlawful fishing’s access to the Community market, as stated the international action plan approved recourse to international and multilateral measures to stamp out trade in unlawfully obtained fish and fisheries products by encouraging the application of penalties. The Regional Fisheries Organisa- tions have demonstrated that it is possible to ban unlawful fish imports to the European market (e.g. the bluefin tuna case at the ICCAT) and to monitor catches by means of catch certificates (e.g. at the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Maríne Living Resources (CCAMLR), the IATTC and the ICCAT).
The Commission took part in the joint FAO/International Maritime Organisation (IMO) working party on vessel monitoring by flag states. In fact the international action plan calls for a closer working relationship between the FAO and the IMO, inter alia with a view to defining the substantive link between the fishing vessel and the state (Article 91 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea).
(1) OJ L 328, 22.12.1999. (2) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.
(2001/C 261 E/202) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(8 March 2001)
Subject: FIFG and reduction of the EU’s fishing effort
Parliament has asked the Commission and the European Council, in its resolution on the common fisheries policy in the face of the challenge of economic globalisation, to continue with the provision of structural aid to the sector, maintaining existing aids which do not entail an increase in the overall fishing effort, notably those which imply environmental improvements or greater protection of the marine environment and those granted to the fleets of Member States which have complied with their undertakings under the successive Multiannual Guidance Programmes (MGPs). Parliament therefore calls on the Commission to continue with its efforts to adapt the Community fleet to existing European and world resource levels, by 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/177
preparing a credible new fleet guidance programme which is in line with realities in the industry and can be applied on an effective and equitable basis to all fleets and workers in the sector, irrespective of nationality.
Can the Commission state what amount within the total sum granted to the EU’s fisheries sector in structural aid was dedicated to reducing the fishing effort in each Member State over the period 1994- 1999?
Can the Commission provide information on the level of execution of that amount in each Member State over the programming period 1994-1999?
Can the Commission state what happened to the non-executed proportion of the amount allocated to reduction of the fisheries effort in each Member State over the programming period 1994-1999?
Can the Commission state what happened to the sums not executed in each Member State which were returned to the Commission over the period 1994-1999?
Can the Commission state what amount within the total sum granted in structural aid to the EU’s fisheries sector has been allocated to the reduction of the fishing effort in each Member State over the period 2000- 2006?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(5 April 2001)
1. Programming of adjustment of fishing effort 1994-99
Adjustment of fishing effort: Aid under the public aid planned from 1994 to 1999 Financial Instrument (amounts shown in € million) for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) Member State (column a) as a % National aid (a) FIFG aid (b) of total FIFG aid planned in the Member State B 2,03 2,03 7,5 % DK 20,36 21,95 16,5 % D 3,71 4,44 2,9 % EL 17,04 50,50 34,3 % E 158,76 331,27 28,6 % F 27,75 27,75 12,4 % IRL 0,64 1,92 2,4 % I 69,60 72,10 21,6 % L 0,0 % NL 13,20 11,65 20,4 % A(1) 0,0 % P 17,74 53,90 26,3 % FIN (1) 2,30 2,22 7,8 % S(1) 2,82 2,82 6,1 % UK 26,58 30,79 28,9 %
Sources: single programming documents and operational programmes 1994-1999. (1) From 1995 only. C 261 E/178 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
2. Disbursement of funds on adjustment of fishing effort 1994-99
(amounts expressed in € million)
Adjustment of fishing effort: Member State appropriations actually taken up from 1994 to 1999 National aid FIFG aid B 2,03 2,03 DK 20,72 20,72 D 2,61 3,51 EL 11,91 39,21 E 145,39 299,15 F 19,17 19,80 IRL 0,65 1,95 I 32,48 41,05 L NL 7,23 3,88 A(1) P 12,09 36,71 FIN (1) 2,13 2,13 S(1) 2,26 2,26 UK 31,99 35,38
Sources: annual reports from the Member States on disbursement in 1994-1999 (1) From 1995 only.
The amounts shown in the table above do not represent total disbursement as payments will continue up to the end of 2001. Total disbursement will only be known in 2002.
3. As indicated beneath the table in point 2 above, disbursement has not ended. It is not possible therefore to determine at present whether part of the appropriations shown in the table in point 1 above (and which amounts) are likely to remain unused. If that should be the case, the unused appropriations will be cancelled since reprogramming has not been possible since 31 December 1999.
4. The Honourable Member is kindly referred to the Commission’s answer to his Written Question E-59/01 (1).
5. Programming of adjustment of fishing effort 2000-2006
(amounts expressed in € million)
Adjustment of fishing effort: Member State public aid programmed from 2000 to 2006 National aid FIFG aid B 2,1 2,1 DK 16,8 16,8 D 6,7 7,8 EL 16,3 48,8 E 125,6 319,9 F 35,9 35,9 IRL 1,7 4,8 I 116,1 116,1 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/179
Adjustment of fishing effort: Member State public aid programmed from 2000 to 2006 National aid FIFG aid L NL (1) 9,0 3,0 A P 9,5 28,6 FIN 2,5 2,5 S 6,1 6,1 UK 53,6 62,5
Sources: single programming documents and operational programmes 2000-2006 (1) Flevoland only (the Dutch programming document for areas outside Objective 1 is still being negotiated).
(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 106.
(2001/C 261 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0688/01 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(8 March 2001)
Subject: Fisheries
On 1 February 2001 the Commission opened an investigation into a number of Member States, including Spain, on the grounds that they had provided low-interest loans to fishermen particularly affected by the continual increases in the price of the diesel fuel used by their vessels.
On the basis of what data and criteria has the Commission opened this investigation?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(10 April 2001)
As in the case of any aid scheme concerning the fisheries and aquaculture sector, the aid measures for fishermen in Spain following the rise in the cost of the fuel were analysed in the light of the Commission guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture (1). The basic criterion adopted by the Commission in its decision to formally open a procedure with regard to these measures is that these are operating aids which are in principle incompatible with the common market.
The guidelines have just been replaced by those adopted by the Commission on 29 November 2000 (2). These new guidelines contain the same general principle that operating aids are incompatible with the common market.
(1) OJ C 100, 27.3.1997. (2) OJ C 19, 20.1.2001. C 261 E/180 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0706/01 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(28 February 2001)
Subject: Public procurement
In 2000, the Commission presented two proposals for directives on public procurement: COM(2000) 275 and COM(2000) 276. These two directives, together with an interpretative document drawn up by the Commission, make it virtually impossible to take account of environmental considerations in public procurement procedures. For instance, it is not permitted to impose environmental requirements on the production of goods that are the subject of public procurement. Nor is it permitted, once the tendering procedure has closed, to give preference to a bid on the grounds that it is more environment-friendly. This is completely at odds with the Treaties which expressly require the European Union to promote sustainable development and take account of environmental factors. What is more, Parliament and the Council are expected to consider the directives without having seen the interpretative document (which has not yet been adopted by the Commission and the preliminary version of which is not publicly accessible). What are the Council’s views regarding the virtual exclusion of environmental considerations from public procurement procedures? What is its position as regards the Council and Parliament being expected to consider the directives without having access to the interpretative document?
Reply
(30 May 2001)
As the Honourable Member already indicates in her question, the Council and the Parliament have at present not finished the first reading of the two Commission proposals for public procurement Directives. For this reason, it is not possible for the Council to comment on individual substantive points still under examination. The Honourable Member might wish to address to the Commission the part of her question which relates to environmental requirements on the production of goods as well as preferences given to products on environmental grounds after the tendering has been closed.
It should be pointed out, however, that according to information from the Commission, the Council may expect the interpretative communication on public procurement and the environment to be published soon enough still to be able to provide guidance for the discussions in the Council at first reading. It should nevertheless be recalled that the communication is merely intended to interpret the present legislation and will not constitute a new Commission proposal.
(2001/C 261 E/205) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0707/01 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(28 February 2001)
Subject: Crisis in Montenegro
This week, the President of Montenegro, Milo Djukanovic, called a general election for 22 April with the intention of holding a referendum on independence in June, should he win the election.
In the light of the European Union’s endeavours to promote stability in the Balkans, which culminated in the Balkans stabilisation process signed in November 2000, how will the Council respond to this fresh crisis in the Balkans? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/181
Reply
(30 May 2001)
The Council has always followed closely the situation in Montenegro and discussed the issue raised by the Honourable Member on several occasions.
As the Honourable Member rightly underlines, the primary objective of the EU is stability in the region. This was clearly stated at the highest level last November not only by the EU but also by regional Heads of State and Government during the 23 November Zagreb Summit. President Djukanovic was present and committed the government to support this objective. Following President Djukanovic’s announcement of the holding of Parliamentary elections 22 April, followed by a referendum on independence, the EU has immediately clarified its position during the 22 January meeting of the Council (formation General Affairs) in which the Council urged authorities in Belgrade and Podgorica,‘… to agree on an open and democratic process, within an overall Federal framework, to decide on a new constitutional arrangement for the relations between the components of the Federation acceptable to all the parties. The Council welcomes the readiness shown by President Kostunica to play a constructive role to that end. It underlines the importance of avoiding any unilateral action which could jeopardise this negotiating process and to ensure the democratic legitimacy of its outcome. It reaffirms its conviction that any renegotiation of the Federal relationship must be consistent with the internal stability of the FRY and the regional stability of South Eastern Europe.’
The EU position was clearly presented to Belgrade and Podgorican authorities by Troika visits, respectively at Ministerial and Political Directors level, 7 and 8 February 2001.
(2001/C 261 E/206) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0712/01 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: Humanitarian and economic disaster in Mongolia
For the second year running, Mongolia has found itself in the grip of an extremely harsh winter which, with temperatures of minus 30°C and very heavy snowfalls preventing animals from grazing, poses a grave threat to a large proportion of the country’s 30 million livestock. Last year’s economic disaster resulted in the deaths of 2,4 million livestock and was followed by an extremely dry summer. The Mongolian Government and experts from the United Nations Development Programme estimate that without a rapid injection of aid on a massive scale, some 12 million livestock are likely to die during the coming weeks, which in humanitarian terms would be nothing short of disastrous. The climatic conditions at the end of January caused the deaths of more than 500 000 livestock and left more than 75 000 Mongolian families struggling to survive.
The European Union, India, Israel and other countries have responded to the appeal launched jointly by the Mongolian Government and the United Nations with offers of several hundred thousand dollars in aid. But the need for aid has been estimated at USD 8,7 million, a figure that does not include approximately USD 4 million in food and other aid animal feed is the top priority needed to contain an economic disaster that is already taking hold and is fast becoming a humanitarian tragedy?
Is the Commission in agreement with the overall assessment of the aid needed?
If so, does it intend to limit its humanitarian intervention and emergency aid to the amounts already committed? C 261 E/182 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(30 March 2001)
In the last few weeks the European Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has received information on the situation in Mongolia from United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and other humanitarian organisa- tions. According to the reports, Mongolia is experiencing a second consecutive winter of blizzards and extremely low temperatures whose negative effects are exacerbated by the previous summer’s prolonged drought. Such climatic conditions result in serious humanitarian problems for the population in the affected regions. They have lost a large proportion of livestock which is their main source of income.
ECHO is financing urgent humanitarian operations to meet the needs of the people in the most badly affected regions. Their main priority is to satisfy immediate food requirements caused by the disastrous winger (‘dzud’). The Commission is in the process of approving a decision to grant aid worth € 1 030 000 for a period of six months. This is in addition to the aid granted by ECHO in 2000 which was worth € 1 875 000 to assist Mongolian families suffering from the consequences of the harsh winter of 1999/ 2000 and the subsequent drought.
The Commission is continuing to assist Mongolia through the TACIS programme. It aims to facilitate its transition towards a market economy by supporting reforms begun by the Mongolian government. Its long-term aim is to help reduce Mongolia’s vulnerability to the economic effects of natural disasters.
(2001/C 261 E/207) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0713/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(1 March 2001)
Subject: Support for the campaign against AIDS in the form of a stance backing the South African Pharmaceuticals Act
On 29 September 2000, in answer to a previous question I tabled to the Commission (E-2316/00) (1), Mr Lamy stated that the TRIPs agreement offered sufficient flexibility to ensure the protection of public health and that, in certain circumstances, it provided for obligatory authorisations. In that connection, and given the seriousness of the AIDS situation in South Africa, where 4,3 million people are suffering from the disease, is the Commission prepared to support the pharmaceuticals legislation adopted by the South African Government?
If so, is it prepared to notify that fact to the South African Government and also to inform it that the letter from Sir Leon Brittan dated 23 March 1998, in which he informed the South African Government, on behalf of the Commission, that the introduction of the new 1997 Pharmaceuticals Act ‘would negatively affect the interests of the European pharmaceutical industry’, will no longer serve as the basis for its policy?
(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 19.
Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission
(4 April 2001)
The Commission is of the opinion that international protection of intellectual property rights is essential in order to encourage investment in research and development activities for pharmaceuticals and vaccines targeted at life-threatening communicable diseases. The Commission considers that the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPs) provides necessary flexibility for World Trade Organisation (WTO) members to protect public health concerns, including recourse to, under certain conditions laid down in Article 31 of TRIPs, compulsory licensing. Hence, while the Commission attaches importance to 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/183
full implementation of the TRIPs Agreement, it does not push WTO members to adopt intellectual property legislation which is more stringent than the Agreement requires.
The letter of the former Member of the Commission responsible for trade, in which he raised the question of the compatibility of the law amending the South African Medicines and Related Substances Control Act with the WTO TRIPs Agreement, was sent in March 1998. To the Commission’s knowledge, the letter never got a reply. The Commission does not see much point in withdrawing a letter the letter exists. The present Commission has made the fight against major communicable diseases a priority. With this objective in mind, it has put in place a global strategy, to improve access to health and adopted a programme for action (available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2000/com2000_0585en02.pdf and http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0096en01.pdf.).
As regards the problems that the South African government is facing in terms of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the related social and economic consequences, the Commission has for long been providing substantial support to South Africa through its bilateral co-operation programme. The Commission will continue to do so, and stands ready to enhance this support if South Africa so wishes.
(2001/C 261 E/208) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0718/01 by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(8 March 2001)
Subject: Use of satellite dishes and freedoms on the single market
Can the Commission say whether it intends in the near future to submit a document clarifying the relationships between the freedom to provide services underlying the single market and the rules governing the use of satellite dishes?
A document on that subject, in the form of a communication setting out the terms in which the above relationships were to be interpreted, was already included in the 2000 work programme but has not yet materialised.
Satellite dishes provide an easy means of receiving advanced-technology services (radio, TV, Internet, etc.) from other countries and thus help to foster contacts between the Union’s different languages and cultures. Since the costs are relatively affordable, they are becoming increasingly popular with families. However, their use sometimes encounters unreasonable obstacles stemming from administrative formalities, charges, or collective decisions connected with the management of jointly owned buildings.
Is the Commission prepared to say whether and within what limits, if any, it believes that the freedoms offered by the single market can be brought to bear at the practical level to benefit consumers in this area of their daily lives?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2001)
As indicated in its answer to the Honourable Member’s written question E-2216/99 (1), the Commission wishes to reemphasise here the importance it attaches to the question raised by the Honourable Member.
The fact that users whether professionals or private individuals have the opportunity to receive broadcasting or information society services easily and affordably is important both from the economic point of view and from the point of view of increasing knowledge of the languages and culture of other countries. C 261 E/184 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
In view of the enormous interest aroused by this subject and the considerable number of requests for information about regulatory and administrative obstacles in this field, the Commission confirmed in its work programme for the current year which, incidentally, has already been submitted to Parliament an interpretative communication on the application of the principles of free movement of goods and services with regard to the use of satellite dishes (operation 2000/378).
It therefore reaffirms here its intention to submit such a document shortly for the various parties concerned, particularly consumers who, as the recipients of services, also benefit from the free movement of services which is a basic freedom directly applicable in national legal systems.
More generally, the Commission has recently set out a new Internal Market Strategy for Services (2), the ultimate aim of which is to remove barriers to the free movement of services across borders using, inter alia, non-legislative instruments such as a communication on satellite dishes.
(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001. (2) COM(2000) 888 final.
(2001/C 261 E/209) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0723/01 by Patrick Cox (ELDR) to the Commission
(6 March 2001)
Subject: Regulation No 2978/94 relating to segregated ballast tanks (SBT) for tankers
The effect of Regulation No 2978/94 (1), has been to adversely affect pilots’ remuneration and their pension which is based on their last year’s earnings. In particular I refer to pilots on the river Shannon in Ireland who are licensed by Shannon Estuary Ports and are self-employed. To the best of my knowledge these are the only pilots in Ireland affected adversely by the regulation. Their remuneration is achieved on a share basis and their income fluctuates depending on the amount of traffic entering the Shannon estuary. Pilotage rates are levied on ships based on the vessel’s gross tonnage. The regulation states that tankers with SBT should have their gross tonnage reduced by a minimum of 17 %.
Was the intention of the regulation to adversely affect pilots’ remuneration? Has this affected pilots in other Member States in a similar manner?
What steps, if any, does the Commission intend to take in order to rectify this situation?
(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94 of 21 November 1994 of 21 November 1994 on the implementa- tion of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Resolution A.747(18) on the application of tonnage measurement of ballast spaces in segregated ballast oil tankers, aims at implementing the Resolution A.747(18) adopted on 4 November 1993 by the IMO, the objective of which is to encourage the use of environmentally friendly tankers and the use of segregated ballast tanks in oil tankers. This Regulation introduces a differential calculation system for fees for oil tankers to be followed by port, harbour and pilotage authorities in order to reach the objective of the IMO Resolution. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/185
The Regulation does not affect the level of the fees nor the differentiation of the pilotage dues based upon the ship’s type. This is a matter which, in line with the principal of subsidiarity, has intentionally been left to the sole responsibility of the Member States.
The Commission has no information on an adverse effect of this Regulation on pilots’ remuneration in other Member States.
The Commission draws the Honorouble Member’s attention to the Commission’s Communication on the safety of the seaborne oil trade (1) and in particular to the proposed legislative measure regarding the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design standards for single hull oil tankers. This proposal foresees the repeal of Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94.
(1) COM(2000) 142 final.
(2001/C 261 E/210) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0726/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(6 March 2001)
Subject: The spread of immigration in Europe
It is obvious that virtually all the governments of the European Union are now struggling with the problem of immigration into Europe. I would cite merely the 910 Kurds who arrived by boat barely a week ago on the Côte d’Azur, the hundreds of immigrants found, yet again, on the beaches of Southern Spain in the last few days, and the shipload of immigrants who besieged the Belgian coast and threw the Belgian Government into crisis.
Given the need to develop a global policy for immigration into Europe, what proposals in this area does the Commission intend to make at the forthcoming Stockholm European Summit on 23 and 24 March? How does the Commission assess the possibilities for harmonising the rules on asylum in the Member States, following the studies which have been carried out? At the forthcoming Stockholm Summit, how does it intend to tackle the issue of much-needed measures to combat the traffic in human beings carried out by Mafia networks throughout Europe?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(10 April 2001)
The Commission believes that it is essential to develop policies at the Union level to deal with issues of illegal immigration in the light of the competence provided by Article 63, 3(b) (ex Article 73K) of the EC Treaty. Although no binding Community rules have yet been adopted, Member States are obliged to fulfil the requirements of the Schengen acquis in so far as they are applicable in the respective State. However, the Commission considers it important to initiate new measures at Union level. Accordingly, in December 2000, the Commission adopted a Communication on combating trafficking in human beings and combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (1) which includes a proposal for a Council framework decision on combating trafficking in human beings. In addition the Commission will present to the Council and the Parliament a communication on a common fight against illegal immigra- tion. This communication will outline which future measures and forms of co-operation are necessary.
The European Council, which met in Stockholm on 23-24 March 2001, recognised the progress being made in the implementation of the Lisbon strategy for the economic and social development of Europe and agreed on new priorities for action. One of the elements in this strategy is the admission of economic C 261 E/186 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
migrants to meet skills shortages which cannot be met, in the short term at least, from the existing labour force. This is in line with the Commission’s proposals for developing a global migration policy which are described in more detail in its Communication on a Community Immigration Policy (2). This Communica- tion was presented at the same time as a separate Communication setting out different options for a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those granted asylum, with the objective of establishing a common European asylum system in the long term (3). With these Communications, the Commission has launched a debate on the way to develop the common policy in these areas, which was agreed at the European Council in Tampere in October 1999.
S’agissant de l’harmonisation du droit d’asile entre les Etats membres à court terme, la Commission rappelle que sur la base du traité CE, des conclusions de Tampere d’octobre 1999 et du tableau de bord sur les progrès réalisés pour la mise en oeuvre de l’Espace de Liberté, Sécurité et Justice, elle a fait des propositions législatives sur Eurodac (empreintes digitales des demandeurs d’asile, Règlement adopté en décembre 2000) (4), un Fonds européen pour les Réfugiés (décision adoptée en septembre 2000) (5), sur la protection temporaire en cas d’afflux massif de personnes déplacées (proposition de directive du 24 mai 2000) (6), sur les normes minimales concernant la procédure d’octroi et de retrait du statut de réfugié dans les Etats membres (proposition de directive du 20 septembre 2000) (7). La Commission fera dans les tous prochains mois et avant la fin 2001 des propositions législatives sur les conditions d’accueil des demandeurs d’asile, la responsabilité de l’examen des demandes d’asile (instrument successeur à la Convention de Dublin), sur le rapprochement des règles sur la reconnaissance et le contenu du statut de réfugié ainsi que sur des formes de protection subsidiaires offrant un statut approprié à toute personne nécessitant une telle protection.
(1) COM(2000) 854 final. (2) COM(2000) 757. (3) COM(2000) 755. (4) OJ L 316, 15.12.2000. (5) OJ L 252, 6.10.2000. (6) OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000. (7) COM(2000) 578 final.
(2001/C 261 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0727/01 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(6 March 2001)
Subject: Regional policy
What European Union aid and subsidies are scheduled to be granted to the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country from 2000 to 2006 inclusive, under the structural funds (Objective 1, Objective 2 and Objective 3) and the Cohesion Fund?
What is the breakdown for the allocation of this funding by province (Alava, Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya) for the period in question?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 2001)
During the 2000-2006 programming period, the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country (Spain) is not eligible under Objective 1 of the Structural Funds.
Where Objective 2 is concerned, the single programming document (SPD) for the Basque Country provides for assistance of € 558 855 222 from the European Regional Development Fund and € 28 781 155 from the European Social Fund. These amounts cannot be broken down between the three Basque provinces of Alava, Guipúzcoa and Biscay at present since, according to the provisions of the programming supple- ment, the choice of projects to be part-financed under this SPD is the responsibility of the managing authorities. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/187
Where Objective 3 is concerned, the operational programme (OP) for the Basque Country provides for assistance of € 222 646 434. In addition, likewise under the Objective 3 Community support framework, five multi-regional OPs will finance activities in the seven autonomous communities outside Objective 1, providing a total Community contribution of € 1 375 921 635. A regional financial breakdown of multi- regional assistance will be presented annually in the implementing reports.
The Autonomous Community of the Basque Country is also eligible for assistance under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance. The SPD concerned covers all autonomous communities outside Objective 1 and provides for total Community assistance of € 207 500 000. According to the initial indicative breakdown carried out by Spain, assistance of € 106 220 000 has been earmarked for the Basque Country.
As regards the Cohesion Fund, it is not possible at this stage to quantify the amount which will be allocated to the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country during the 2000-2006 programming period or to break down this amount by province. At this stage, under Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/ 1999 of 21 June 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 establishing a Cohesion Fund, (1) the total resources to be committed under this Fund during the period in question amounts to approximately € 18 billion for all four eligible countries and the indicative allocation for Spain is 61 % to 63,5 % of this amount. It should be borne in mind that the national authorities are responsible for the initial choice of projects to be submitted under the Cohesion Fund and that these projects are presented to the Commission at intervals throughout the programming period.
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2001/C 261 E/212) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0731/01 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba (TDI) to the Commission
(7 March 2001)
Subject: Attitude of the Italian National Agency for Civil Aviation (ENAC) towards the Air Sicilia company
The ENAC has, without prior notice and by means of a press release (!), announced the suspension of Air Sicilia’s airworthiness certificate and operating licence, as from 20 February 2001. It has accused the airline of ‘various instances of failure to apply airworthiness standards on the Boeing 737 aircraft used by the company’.
There are apparently two reasons for such a drastic measure: the appointment of a technical director, who, according to the ENAC, does not meet the required standards, and the fact that technical staff are employed by the G.A.I. company (which is part of the Air Sicilia group and belongs exclusively to the same shareholders) and not by Air Sicilia which has been providing regular links at national level for six years now.
Following complaints from the company’s managing director and employees, who took the case to the Sicilian regional administrative court, the Prefect of Catania announced, with the government’s authority, that sales of tickets could resume and authorised Air Sicilia to resume flights, albeit provisionally using other aircraft.
Knowing that, could the Commission answer the following:
Does the Commission not consider that, if the Ministry of Transport rapidly annuls the measure taken against Air Sicilia, the company should be awarded appropriate damages?
Is it aware of any previous instances of airline companies having their flight licences suspended for similar reasons? If so, what companies?
Is the Commission prepared to conduct an inquiry into these events, and in particular the action taken by the ENAC and any abuse of power it may have committed with a view to favouring other airline companies which have recently entered the market, in the light of European rules on competition and non-discrimination? C 261 E/188 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(24 April 2001)
The matter raised by the Honourable Member relates to the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992, on air carrier licensing (1) in Italy. These rules clearly stipulate that the granting and maintenance of operating licences to air carriers established in the Community is carried out by Member States. Such a licence can only be granted and validly maintained, if an air carrier possesses a valid air operator certificate (AOC). This certificate, which is also granted by Member States, specifies the activities covered by the operating licence and affirms that the operator in question has the professional ability and organisation to secure the safe operation of aircraft for the activities foreseen. As such safety standards are the subject of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (2).
Member States are required by the Licence Regulation not to grant or maintain operating licences when the requirements of the Regulation are not met. Equally, Member States cannot refuse to grant or maintain operating licences when the requirements of the Regulation are complied with. These requirements include the financial fitness of the air carrier in question. Also, the Regulation allows Member States to require for the purpose of issuing or maintaining a licence that there is proof that the persons managing continuously and effectively the air carrier meet specific standards of professional conduct, in addition to the technical standards required by the AOC.
Finally, the Licence Regulation requires Member States to make procedures for the granting of operating licences public. Decisions to grant or revoke licences have to be published in the Official Journal. Furthermore, decisions to refuse or revoke an operating licence have to be reasoned. The Commission has not yet received any decision by the national authorities concerned with regard to the air carrier Air Sicilia. Undertakings that have been refused operating licences can refer the matter to the Commission, which has then the obligation to investigate if the requirements of the Regulation are met and take position on the issue. The Commission has not received to date any such request from Air Sicilia. In that respect, any matter of compensation for damages incurred due to the loss of an operating licence falls under the competence of national courts.
(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992. (2) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.
(2001/C 261 E/213) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0739/01 by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 March 2001)
Subject: Report on the future objectives of education systems
The 2000 Lisbon European Council asked ‘the Council (Education) to undertake a general reflection on the concrete future objectives of education systems, focusing on common concerns and priorities while respecting national diversity, with a view to contributing to the Luxembourg and Cardiff processes and presenting a broader report to the European Council in the Spring of 2001.’ When will this report be presented?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(18 May 2001)
In March 2000 the Lisbon European Council asked the Education Council to ‘undertake a general reflection on the concrete future objectives of education systems’ and to ‘present a broader report to the 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/189
European Council in the spring of 2001’. On 12 February 2001 the Education Ministers meeting within the Education Council adopted a report describing the common concrete future objectives of European education systems for the coming years. This report was based on a draft presented by the Commission to Parliament.
In the context of inter-institutional cooperation, the report adopted by the Education Council was subsequently forwarded by the Council to Parliament.
This report was ratified by the Heads of State and Government at the Stockholm European Council on 23- 24 March 2001. In following up the report, the Commission will take account of any ideas that Parliament would like to share with it in the course of this year.
(2001/C 261 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0751/01 by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(7 March 2001)
Subject: The Regions
What view does the Commission take of the demands made by the Committee of the Regions:
to give decision-taking powers back to the citizens and establish a clear division of responsibilities between the various levels (EU, the national States, the regions and communes)?
not to define the EU in a definitive manner, which would lead to an extension of its powers?
to accept the regions as basic units for free elections to a European Parliament?
to ensure that the Europe of the regions is not just represented by the Committee of the Regions, but that new decision-taking forums are set up involving local authorities?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(30 March 2001)
The Union’s actions are based on powers expressly assigned by the Treaties and exercised in accordance with the subsidiarity principle defined in Article 5 (formerly Article 3b) of the EC Treaty and in the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. In accordance with Declaration No 23 adopted by the Nice European Council in December 2000, a wide-ranging debate at European level bringing together all the parties concerned should take place in preparation for the Laeken European Council and with a view to a new Intergovernmental Conference in 2004; the question of the division of powers should be part of this debate.
The Commission will contribute with specific initiatives in collaboration, notably, with Parliament, as well as its White Paper on Governance, which will be adopted in the summer. The Commission does not share the view that defining the Union’s purpose will necessarily mean an extension of its powers.
The Commission has no power of initiative as far as the provisions for elections to Parliament are concerned. In accordance with Article 190(4) (formerly Article 138) of the EC Treaty, it is Parliament which is asked to draw up a proposal for a uniform electoral procedure in all the Member States. Its proposal must be approved by the Council, acting unanimously, receive a favourable opinion from a majority of the Members of Parliament, and be adopted by all the Member States in accordance with their internal constitutional requirements.
The Commission endorses the Committee of the Regions’ demands that it should be fully consulted in the fields provided for by the EC Treaty. Procedures for consulting territorial bodies on initiatives that affect them are often used, in full compliance, naturally, with the provisions and structures of each Member State. C 261 E/190 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0754/01 by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission
(7 March 2001)
Subject: Lazio Region’s Leader+ programme
Lazio Region’s Leader+ programme for the period from 2000-2006 has been submitted to the Commi- ssion, which has declared it inadmissible. Can the Commission explain why it has done so and say what guidelines it has given to enable the document to be redrafted in accordance with the criteria governing the initiative, thus ensuring that the economic players and communities concerned suffer no further disadvantages?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(3 April 2001)
The Honourable Member’s question relates to the admissibility of the Lazio Region Leader+ programme.
On 16 November 2000 the Italian Permanent Representative submitted the Lazio Region programme under the Leader+ Community Initiative, in accordance with Article 21(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/ 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (the general Regulation) (1) and with point 42 of the Commission notice laying down guidelines for the Leader+ Community Initiative (2).
Article 28 of the general Regulation and point 35 of the Leader+ notice state that the Commission is to approve Leader+ programmes within not more than five months of the date of receipt, provided that all the requirements which the general Regulation and the notice stipulate have been met.
On carrying out a basic overall check after receiving notification of the Lazio Region’s Leader+ programme, the Commission found significant deficiencies and a lack of information with regard to several relevant provisions of the notice.
On 14 December 2000 the Commission accordingly wrote to the Italian Permanent Representative, stating that the programme was inadmissible and asking the Italian authorities to meet the regulatory require- ments by incorporating into the proposed programme all the information required for it to deem this programme admissible as soon as possible.
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (2) OJ C 139, 18.5.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0755/01 by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(7 March 2001)
Subject: Financing of a school fruit programme
The Netherlands parliament has asked the country’s ministers for public health and agriculture to draw up a programme for supplying fruit to primary schools. The intention is to get children into the habit of eating fruit from an early age so that it stays with them for life. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/191
In view of the provisions of Regulation (EC) 2826/2000 (1) on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market, school fruit programmes could be included amongst actions focusing on nutritional and health aspects. Does the Commission consider that school fruit comes within the scope of this definition?
Is it prepared to release money for the school fruit programme under the support scheme for promotional measures?
(1) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(20 April 2001)
The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that under Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market (1), the sectors or products which can be the subject of information or promotion measures are determined taking into account, inter alia, the desirability of drawing attention to the nutritional and health value of the products in question, by means of thematic or target-specific campaigns.
The desirability of Community measures in favour of fruit consumption in schools will shortly be discussed in connection with the detailed rules for applying that Regulation, which are to be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the management committee procedure.
The Commission will keep the Honourable Member informed of the outcome of these discussions.
(1) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/217) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0758/01 by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(7 March 2001)
Subject: EU slaughtering programme to alleviate the beef market
As part of the EU programme to support the beef market, 400 000 cattle over 30 months old are to be purchased, slaughtered and incinerated in Germany, including 12 000 in the Rhineland-Palatinate. 314 German abattoirs can apply for the tender to slaughter published by the Federal Ministry for Consumer Protection, Agriculture and Food in the Federal Gazette if they are in a position to slaughter 40 cows per hour. The ‘stringent conditions’ in the EU regulation are said to be the reason for this. According to one of the largest abbatoirs in the Rhineland-Palatinate it is not possible to slaughter 40 cows per hour because of the delay caused by the brain samples that need to be taken for BSE testing. The result would therefore be cattle having to be transported to abattoirs capable of providing the appropriate capacity. However, transport costs for farmers and needlessly long transport times for livestock are supposed to be avoided.
The Commission is therefore asked to indicate:
1. What exact form do the ‘stringent conditions’ take that result in 40 cows needing to be slaughtered per hour and how restrictively are these conditions implemented?
2. How does it justify these conditions and does it regard them as indispensable in the light of the above difficulties?
3. What scope does it see for counteracting specific problems of implementation? C 261 E/192 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2001)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support mea- sures for the beef market (1) does not specify any particular type of slaughterhouse in terms of slaughtering capacity. Article 7 of the Regulation provides nevertheless that Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure proper application of the scheme, in particular compliance with the provisions of its Article 5.
According to information from the German authorities the minimum slaughter capacity per slaughter- house was established as a consequence of the limited staff available with short notice for the on-the-spot control operations. Nevertheless, the selected participating slaughterhouses are geographically covering the main beef producing areas in Germany thereby guaranteeing a reasonable distance for transport of the animals.
(1) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/218) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0760/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(7 March 2001)
Subject: Commission inspectors’ investigation of BSE in Greece
From 12 to 16 February, Commission veterinary inspectors conducted inquiries in Greece into the implementation of measures concerning BSE.
In the light of the inspectors’ report, will the Commission say:
1. whether adequate checks are carried out on cattle to detect the disease,
2. whether the measures to protect cattle from BSE are observed, and
3. under what conditions cattle are fed and slaughtered, and, in particular, what the situation is in Greek slaughterhouses and to what extent the criteria laid down by Community law are fulfilled?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(23 April 2001)
The aim of the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) mission to Greece from 12 to 16 February 2001 was to assess the monitoring measures introduced for the prevention of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
In accordance with Commission Decision 98/139/EC of 4 February 1998 laying down certain detailed rules concerning on-the-spot checks carried out in the veterinary field by Commission experts in the Member States (1), internal FVO procedures stipulate that a draft mission report drawn up by the FVO within 20 working days must be sent to the authorities of the Member State visited; the authorities must then reply to the FVO within 25 working days of receipt of the Greek version of the report. The FVO will not be able to publish the final report until this procedure has ended.
The final report of the mission should be completed by mid-May 2001 at the latest. In line with normal procedure, the report will be sent by the Commission to Parliament and published on the Internet. Independently of this report, the Commission has repeatedly called on all Member States to ensure full implementation and respect of Community legislation on BSE.
(1) OJ L 38, 12.2.1998. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/193
(2001/C 261 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0764/01 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Silk production in the EU
The mulberry tree which is indispensable for breeding silkworms and developing silk production grows in an area in the Mediterranean countries of the Union. France, Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal have a notable production of cocoons, an activity which constitutes a substantial source of income for farmers and those employed in the silk industry. Total annual production in the Union is estimated at 60 tonnes of dried cocoons which yield some 20 tonnes of silk thread.
The EU’s total silk product needs could be met by cultivating 100 000 hectares of mulberry trees, employing some 100 000 households: this would lead to a reduction in unemployment and boost the incomes of farmers in Europe whose numbers are steadily declining. It should be pointed out that production of silk thread in the EU lags far behind requirements and the EU is obliged to import raw materials from Asia (Vietnam, for instance) and Africa (Zambia, for instance), even though it could very easily produce the silk needed on its territory.
Will the Commission say whether its services have recently drawn up a study on the problems facing sericulture and the silk industry in the Union and, if so, what conclusions it reached? Will it also say whether there is any prospect of the production of European silkworm eggs so as to make the Union self- sufficient, solve the problem of dependence on third countries and offer a prospect of development to border regions, such as Thrace, where production is ailing, leading to further unemployment and a fall in producers’ incomes?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 2001)
The Commission has not recently studied the problems of European sericulture and the Community silk industry.
Silkworm rearing in Greece, Italy and in lesser degree Spain and France accounts for a minute proportion of the Community’s agricultural activity and of world sericulture. But in some regions, notably Thrace, Veneto and Marche, it is of significance and the skills involved merit preservation.
Accordingly to enable the operators concerned to plan their activities in the longer term the Council has decided, on a Commission proposal as part of the 2000/2001 price package, to prolong the Community aid on boxes of silkworm eggs.
(2001/C 261 E/220) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0777/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Uranium contamination
The question issue of the use of depleted uranium during the Kosovo war has rightly alarmed the public, who are fearful that possible contamination may have caused an increase in irreversible diseases.
Medical authorities in various countries are performing health tests on military and civilian personnel who operated in the areas affected by depleted uranium bombs, but have found it difficult to determine whether they were contaminated or not. C 261 E/194 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
According to press reports a company known as ‘Nuclear Manufactures New Technologies and Advanced Services, located in Bosco Marengo (Alessandria Province), has in its possession two examples of an instrument known as’total body’, which is able to measure the amount of uranium present the a human body.
In the light of this, will the Commission say:
Whether it is aware of the existence of this instrument?
Whether it thinks it should be used to carry out tests on soldiers who took part in the NATO campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo or who are still in the Balkans, in order to find out for certain whether uranium contamination occurred and on what scale?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(8 May 2001)
The instruments mentioned by the Honourable Member are presumably ‘body counters’, which are used for the control of the incorporation of radioactive matter by the human body. There are many of these instruments in use in different Member States, but the Commission has no specific information on the ones in Bosco Marengo.
A body counter may in particular cases not be suitable to determine the quantity of radionuclides present in the human body.
The soldiers who were in the Balkans are thought to have adsorbed only very small amounts of depleted uranium. Depleted uranium itself emits alpha radiation which is not detectable, and the low energy gamma rays emitted by decay products are attenuated by the body tissue. In addition, the body rapidly eliminates most of the absorbed uranium. As a consequence, it seems that the absorption of depleted uranium by the soldiers may not be detectable by this technique, and other methods (bio-assay) may be preferred.
The question of whether or not to conduct tests on soldiers who served in the Balkans is a matter for Member States, not the Commission.
(2001/C 261 E/221) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0782/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(7 March 2001)
Subject: Safety in ports
In a communiqué issued on 21 February 2001, the Greek Union of Merchant Maríne Masters (PEPEN) points out that in many Greek ports, there are shallow waters, incorrect signalling of reefs and uncharted sandbanks, dilapidated jetties, lack of mooring bollards, poorly illuminated lighthouses, lack of port terminals and a total absence of passenger facilities, creating serious problems for safe shipping.
Problems of this kind have been identified in 31 Greek ports, including Piraeus, Heraklion, Rethymnon, Samos, Paros, etc. where passenger traffic is intense, especially during the summer months. Following the inclusion of many port development schemes in Community programmes, a number of infrastructure projects have been carried out but the shortcomings persist as those projects have only covered the minimum requirements.
In the light of the recent accidents in Europe, safety must be the paramount objective of Community activity in the shipping sector. Can the Commission, therefore, say to what extent Greek ports have the necessary infrastructure, whether they meet the required safety standards and whether the projects to be funded under the 3rd CSF have been selected? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/195
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 2001)
The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that there is no Community framework establishing minimum safety requirements for ports infrastructure on the specific issues raised.
Moreover, for such aspects, there is no obligation for Member States to communicate to the Commission the state of infrastructure equipment, nor of compliance with safety prescriptions (national or interna- tional) of ports within their territory.
Member States bear full responsibility for ensuring safety in their ports.
However, the Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that the following two pieces of European legislation will strengthen and enhance safety in port procedures; in general:
Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing requirements and harmonized procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers. This proposed Directive will translate the IMO Bulk Loading and Unloading Code into Community Law and currently is in first reading.
In addition, Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, ensures that all EU ports will have the necessary facilities to meet the waste delivery needs of all ships using them. This Directive, which has to be implemented by December 2002, also provides the foundation for a continuous dialogue between ports and their users in the context of waste management planning.
The operational programme (OP) ‘Road axes, ports, urban development’ under the Community support framework for Greece during the 2000-2006 programming period, provides mainly for interventions to improve port facilities of Pireaus, Lavrio and Patras. Interventions to other ports to be defined at a later stage will be co-financed either by the above mentioned OP or other regional OP, or by the cohesion fund.
The precise ports and the characteristics of projects to be co-financed will in any case be decided by the managing authority of the respective OPs, on the basis of criteria to be defined in the programming complement. For the cohesion fund, the final co-financing decision is taken by the Commission, on the basis of the Member States proposals.
(2001/C 261 E/222) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0785/01 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission
(7 March 2001)
Subject: The importation of fish into the EU
In 2000, 405 000 tonnes of fish were imported into Italy, 56 % of which came from EU countries. The remaining 44 % came from third countries such as Argentina, Morocco, Thailand and Colombia.
Around a quarter of the fish imported from these countries is farmed. In view of the fact that in the EU there are regulations in force designed to safeguard the hygiene of the tanks used for fish farming, can the Commission say:
1. whether quality and hygiene checks are carried out on fish imported from third countries;
2. whether in the fisheries agreements signed with third countries the European Commission has provided for measures in line with those in force in the EU in order to ensure a high standard of health protection? C 261 E/196 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(2 May 2001)
The import of fishery products from third countries is regulated since 1991 by Council Directive 91/493/ EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products (1).
1. This Directive establishes the sanitary conditions and the control checks to be carried out on fishery products to be marketed in the Community. This concerns both Community production and imports from third countries. The Directive provides that the health provisions applied to imports of fishery products from third countries shall be at least equivalent to those governing the Community production.
2. To lay down the specific import conditions of fishery products from a third country the Commission is required to verify the above equivalency, taking particular account of the following:
the legislation of the third country;
the organisation of the competent authority of the third country and of its inspection services;
the actual health conditions during the production, storage and dispatch of fishery products intended for the Community;
the guarantees given by the third country regarding the compliance with the standards laid down in the Annex to Directive 91/493/EEC.
After an evaluation mission by Community inspectors in the third country, if all the conditions are fulfilled, the competent authority of the third country is recognised by a Commission Decision. The competent authority is thus empowered to inspect fishery products on the basis of Community standards, and to sign health certificates for the export of such products to the Community.
(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.
(2001/C 261 E/223) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0788/01 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Excessive bureaucracy and financial costs when re-registering a motor vehicle in Spain
1. Does the Commission intend to reduce the cumbersome excess of bureaucratic red-tape that vehicle owners encounter when trying to re-register a car in Spain? (Required visits to the town hall, the tax office, the Spanish MOT, the competent transport department, a special engineerings office for a technical examination of the car and a licensed workshop)
2. What is the Commission’s opinion of the resulting high charges of about 100 000 Pesetas (DM 1200) in total that vehicle owners must pay the bodies listed above?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(8 May 2001)
In view of the many complaints received in recent years, the Commission has the opportunity to examine the administrative obstacles encountered by European citizens in Spain when registering a vehicle previously registered in another Member State. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/197
In this context, it should be pointed out, firstly, that following a number of infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission, the Spanish authorities amended their legislation on the registration of vehicles in 1999 to bring it into line with the case law of the Court, based on the relevant Commission interpretative communication (1). Thus, the Spanish authorities adopted the Real Decreto 1204/1999 of 7 July, the Instruction 98/V-20 of the Directorate-General for Transport and the General Vehicles Regulation (Real Decreto 2822/1998), which have substantially simplified the procedure for registering vehicles imported to Spain.
Following this simplification and according to the information provided by the Spanish authorities to the Commission, it appears that any registration procedure can be completed in a matter of days and without any excessive charges, provided that the vehicle owner fulfils certain requirements (successful technical inspection, payment of taxes, etc.).
The procedure takes longer and is more expensive in cases where the vehicle presented for registration has not previously been formally approved in a state of the European Economic Area. Indeed, in such a case the national authorities may require that the vehicle be subject to individual type-approval, which must not consist of destructive tests. In these specific cases, the Commission recognises the need for individual type-approval on condition that there are no excessive charges and that documents issued in other states of the European Economic Area are taken into account.
The specific example of high charges, mentioned by the Honourable Member, seems to refer either to the procedure before simplification or to cases in which individual type-approval is necessary. If new complaints were to reveal that high charges were still being levied following the above-mentioned administrative simplification, other than in cases of individual type-approval, the Commission will not fail to investigate such cases as necessary to ensure compliance with Community law.
(1) OJ C 143, 15.5.1996.
(2001/C 261 E/224) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0795/01 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission (7 March 2001)
Subject: Greek and Turkish missing persons
What is the Commission doing whether as part of the Cyprus accession negotiations process or otherwise to seek further progress in the resolution of the issue of both Greek and Turkish Cypriot missing persons?
Some 2000 persons in total (both sides combined) have been missing since 1974. The humanitarian interest in resolving the question of their fate is clear and non-resolution is a factor of continuing poison in relationships on the island.
How can the Commission offer to facilitate and advance a solution on missing persons in the interests of reconciliation?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (2 May 2001)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-0506/01 by Mr Davies (1) on the question of missing persons in Cyprus.
In particular it would like to underline that the agreement on an Accession Partnership with Turkey now provides the framework for the discussion of a wide range of matters of interest to both the Union and Turkey, within the framework of the ‘enhanced political dialogue’, provided for by that Agreement. The Commission intends to make full use of this facility in the future.
(1) See page 131. C 261 E/198 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0797/01 by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Support for producers’ organisations and reform of COM in cotton
Part of the argument used by Commissioner Fischler in his statement to Parliament of 15 February 2001 concerning the report by Mr Korakas on the system of aid for cotton was based on an error.
Mr Fischler said that he could not accept Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 16 and 19, proposing the introduction of a scheme to support cotton producers’ organisations, because Regulation (EC) 398/82 (1) had already established a system of incentives for such organisations and it would amount to duplication. All the signs are that Mr Fischler was misinformed or failed to take into account the fact that the regulation in question expired nine years ago on 25 February 1992. It was precisely this that prompted myself and other members to table these amendments in the Committee on Agriculture.
In view of this error, will the Commission now accept the validity of these amendments?
If it continues to oppose them, what mechanism does it intend to introduce under the COM in cotton to assist producers’ organisations?
(1) OJ L 51, 23.2.1982, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(18 April 2001)
Paragraph 4 of Protocol 4 on cotton, annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece, provides for the grant of aid with a view to encouraging the formation of producer groups and associations thereof and assisting their operation.
The general rules of the aid scheme were laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) No 389/82, which determines in particular, in its Articles 1 to 3, the system for recognising producer groups and associations. The Community, from 1982 to 1992, thus encouraged their formation: launching aid was provided together with investment aid, primarily for the purchase of harvesting machinery. The possession of harvesting machinery has now become general, in Greece as well as in Spain.
Currently, and this has been the case since 1993, no common measure provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 389/82 is the subject of Community financial support, since the period envisaged for carrying out these measures is over. However, it should be noted that the Regulation has not been repealed and that the rules on the organisations in question, in particular their articles of association and the way they operate, still apply.
In addition, it should be pointed out that cotton also benefits from the across-the-board structural and agro-environmental measures which concern farms or collective action in the regions where cotton growing is established.
Since it did not appear justified to finance the creation of the same producer groups twice, and their operation is already indirectly supported by the cotton regime and the across-the-board measures, the Commission rejected amendments 7, 8, 16 and 19 referred to by the Honourable Member. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/199
(2001/C 261 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0798/01 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: ‘Biological earmark’ as proof of origin for cattle
As the Commission has no doubt learned from various press reports, in January 2000 the november AG company was awarded the Germany Industry Innovation Prize for Young Companies, for developing a biological marking process.
The ‘biological earmark’ claims to be able to identify the origin of domestic animals and meat in a flawless way. Unlike the processes in use at present, this method claims largely to exclude opportunities for manipulation.
Is the Commission considering replacing the traditional process for proving origin by means of earmarks, animal passports and a cumbersome reporting and registration procedure with a system using the ‘biological earmark’?
What problems does the Commission foresee in introducing the biological marking process?
Does the Commission have details of the estimated cost involved in using the biological marking process?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(2 May 2001)
Although the development of a biological marking process has been described in the press as a promising tool, detailed information on the reliability of the process would be needed for the assessment of the ‘biological earmark’.
Concerning any possible replacement of the traditional process for identifing origin by means of earmarks, animal passports and reporting and registration it must be underlined that the Commission has no intention of proposing any relaxation of the provisions for identification and registration.
The two basic objectives of these provisions are:
the localisation and the tracing of animals for veterinary purposes, which is of crucial importance for the control of contagious diseases;
the management and supervision of livestock premiums as part of the reform of the agricultural policy.
With the adoption in 1997 of Council Regulation (EC) 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (1), the existing provisions for the identification and registration of bovine animals (Council Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 (2)) were reinforced. This reinforcement was necessary as experience, and notably the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, had shown that the implementation of the existing rules for identification and registration had not been entirely satisfactory and needed further improvement.
The reinforced system for the identification and registration of bovine animals comprises 1) eartags to identify animals individually, 2) computerised databases, 3) animal passports and 4) individual registers kept on each holding.
These provisions have been carried over in Regulation (EC) 1760/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (3). C 261 E/200 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
According to Regulation (EC) 1760/2000 the Commission is committed to present to the Parliament and the Council a report on electronic identification before 31 December 2001. No other alternative identification has been foreseen.
(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997. (2) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992. (3) OJ L 204, 11.8.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/227) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/01 by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission (19 March 2001)
Subject: Sea bass fishing situation
Nearly a year ago a written question (E-1334/00) (1) was tabled on the sea bass fishing situation and on stock levels of that species. The situation hardly seems to be improving. On the contrary, the volume of sea bass caught with trawl nets is reported to have soared.
The question consequently arises of whether to introduce a special fishing permit, one that would be exceptional and non-transferrable, to ensure a return to catch levels compatible with the capacity of stocks to renew themselves.
The question also arises of suspending fishing operations generally during the period of greatest vulnerability, viz. 15 February to 31 March.
What does the Commission think of those two suggestions?
(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 28.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 May 2001)
As indicated in the response to the Honourable Member’s written question (1), the Commission, requested the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to report on the state of exploitation of bass stocks in the north-east Atlantic and to suggest technical means by which problems might be solved. The appropriate working group of ICES is expected to report on this topic in May 2001. The report will be the basis of further consideration of this topic by the Commission.
Either of the possibilities put forward by the Honourable Member is conceivable but, until ICES has reported and until the Commission has undertaken its further considerations, it is premature to decide on precise management measures.
(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001.
(2001/C 261 E/228) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0818/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (19 March 2001)
Subject: Distortion of competition due to disparities in national and regional BSE measures
Two days after the failed Agriculture Council of Monday, 26 February, the French Government decided to make 8,5 billion francs available for assistance to cattle farmers affected by the BSE crisis. The Commission has to be informed of the measure in advance, stating detailed reasons. It can enter into force only once 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/201
the Commission has given the go-ahead. The French Minister of Agriculture, Glavany, already considers that his proposal complies ‘perfectly’ with the criteria stated by the Commission.
As long ago as the January 2001 plenary, the Commission and Council were explicitly warned against distortion of competition arising from the very disparate support measures. Despite this, the fifteen agriculture ministers and the Commission still have not succeeded in working out a common European framework for the financial consequences of the BSE crisis.
While there is huge uncertainty about compensation for the damage which has been suffered, Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler and the Council are passing the parcel to and fro between themselves. On the evening of Wednesday, 17 January, the Council announced that it was aware of the risks of distortion of competition arising from the systems of compensation for the collection and disposal of risk material and the embargo of December 2000 on animal meal (H-0002/01 (1)). In reply to question H-0003/01 (2) concerning a coordinated approach, Agriculture Commissioner Fischler laconically referred to the common organisation of the market in beef and the requirement to notify fiscal and parafiscal measures.
1. What view does the Commission take of the French Government’s measure to provide financial assistance to cattle farmers affected by the BSE crisis? Does this measure comply ‘perfectly’ with the criteria adopted by the Commission?
2. Which EU Member States have so far notified the Commission that they intend to adopt national support measures? Do these measures accord with the criteria adopted by the Commission?
(1) Written answer of 17.1.2001. (2) Written answer of 16.1.2001.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(23 April 2001)
The Commission has indeed been notified by the French authorities of a scheme to compensate stock farmers affected by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. In close cooperation with those authorities, it is currently examining the draft aid scheme in the light of Article 87 (formerly Article 92) of the EC Treaty. The Commission is not yet therefore in a position to deliver an opinion on the decision that it will adopt concerning the aid’s compatibility with the Community competition rules.
To date, Italy, Ireland and Spain at the level of the autonomous communities and Germany at the level of the Länder have also notified similar measures directed at stock farmers affected by the BSE crisis. All these measures are under examination by the Commission and, consequently, it is not yet possible to come to a conclusion about the compatibility of the notified aid schemes.
(2001/C 261 E/229) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0821/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Substandard subsidised tobacco
Can the Commission give details about the identity of the principal recipients of the tobacco which is grown within the EU and which benefits from enormous subsidies (almost € 1 000 million) under the common agricultural policy? Can it confirm that a substantial proportion is exported to non-EU countries because it is substandard and that it is used in the manúfacture of high-tar and/or high-nicotine cigarettes? C 261 E/202 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 2001)
According to the latest available data (1999), the main markets for Community exports of raw tobacco are:
Russia (20 % of total Community exports), United States (13 %), Egypt (7 %), Poland (6 %), Romania (6 %), Switzerland (5 %), Algeria (5 %), Japan (3 %), Ukraine (3 %), Indonesia (2 %), Turkey (2 %), Uruguay, (2 %), Czech Republic (2 %), Tunisia (2 %) and Hungary (2 %).
Community exports of raw tobacco have decreased from 192 000 tonnes in 1995 to 118 000 tonnes in 1999, i.e. a reduction of approximately 40 %, particularly in the area of lower priced tobaccos; this meant that the quality of the tobacco actually exported has improved, as shown by an increase in the unit value of the exported product. The average unit value of Community tobacco exported towards the 15 principal importing countries represented in 1995 around 30 % of the average unit value of the tobacco imported from the 15 principal exporting countries. In 1999 this proportion amounted to 60 %. The average price of Community exported raw tobacco in 1999 was € 2,49 per kilogram while the average world price was approximately U$ 2,60.
Concerning the final destination of Community exported raw tobacco, the Commission is not in a position to confirm that a substantial proportion is used in the manufacturing of high-tar and nicotine cigarettes. As a matter of fact cigarettes are manufactured with blends of raw tobacco from numerous origins. In addition, it should be borne in mind that additives and manufacturing technology used by the cigarette industry have a significant effect on the content of nicotine and tar in cigarettes.
Furthermore, the new reform of the common market organisation (CMO) in raw tobacco applied since 1999 has incorporated a quota buy-back programme and the possibility of transferring between varieties. This has resulted in a decrease in the production of lower priced tobacco varieties, which often contain high levels of tar and nicotine.
(2001/C 261 E/230) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0822/01 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Destruction of cultural treasures in Afghanistan
The Taliban Government in Afghanistan recently announced its criminal decision to destroy a host of non- Muslim monuments located on Afghan territory. These artefacts which include Hellenistic monuments and Buddhist statues have survived for thousands of years, but the Taliban has already begun or will begin shortly to turn them into heaps of stones in an anachronistic display of hatred and contempt for the treasures of human artistic creation.
Will the Commission say whether it intends to take immediate action and, if so, what action to put an end forthwith to this destruction and to save whatever monuments can still be salvaged from the destructive rage of the Taliban, given that many of these monuments are also symbols of Europe’s cultural creation? Can it make any funds available to protect the world’s cultural heritage? How does it view the idea of setting up a special EU fund for buying up cultural treasures which are threatened with destruction?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(7 May 2001)
Despite what has probably been an unprecedented number of appeals from governments, international organisations, religious and cultural organisations from around the world, the leader of the Taliban organisation in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar, has refused to reconsider his order that two Buddhist statues at Bamiyan should be destroyed. It now appears from press reports that the statues have been destroyed. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/203
When the news from Afghanistan concerning the edict to destroy the statues first reached the outside world, the Union immediately issued a declaration urging the Taliban leadership not to implement what it called ‘this deeply tragic decision, which would deprive the people of Afghanistan of its rich cultural heritage’.
The Union’s latest Common Position on Afghanistan of 22 January 2001 (1) states that the Union shall urge all factions to respect and protect the cultural heritage of Afghanistan and shall encourage activities in the field by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) and the Society for the Preservation of Afghanistan’s Cultural Heritage (SPACH).
The budget of the Community does not contain provision for the funding of measures destined to protect the world cultural heritage. There are at present no plans by the Community to create a special fund to buy cultural treasures threatened with destruction.
(1) OJ L 21, 23.1.2001.
(2001/C 261 E/231) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0825/01 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(19 March 2001)
Subject: Pollution of the Cares and Deva rivers in the Picos de Europa
The Picos de Europa mountains, situated in the north of Spain in the regions of Asturias, León and Cantabria, have been designated a national park by the Spanish authorities.
Beech, oak, yew, holly, ash and lime trees shelter a rich fauna, including 64 species of mammal and 146 kinds of birds, several of which are protected, including the capercaillie, golden eagle and goshawk. It is the only national park to be home to bears, wolves and salmon, three of the species that are most representative of the native wildlife.
Until recently, the rivers running through the national park were clean and clear. But over the last ten years, untreated urban and agricultural waste has been threatening this purity. Discharges into the Deva and Cares rivers and their tributaries may infringe Directives 78/659/EEC (1), 79/923/EEC (2), 91/271/ EEC (3) and 76/464/EEC (4) on water quality, the recently revised Directive 91/676/EEC on pollution by nitrates and Directive 92/43/EEC (5) on habitats.
What steps does the Commission plan to take, in its capacity as guardian of the Treaties, to ensure compliance with Community environmental legislation in this area?
(1) OJ L 222, 14.8.1978, p. 1. (2) OJ L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47. (3) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40. (4) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23. (5) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(24 April 2001)
The Commission is aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.
A complaint received recently on the subject has been registered and is now being examined.
In its capacity as Guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take the necessary steps to ensure that the relevant Community legislation is complied with in this case. C 261 E/204 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/232) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0826/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(19 March 2001)
Subject: Support for the campaign against AIDS in the form of a stance backing the South African Pharmaceuticals Act
1. Is the Commission aware that, on 5 March 2001, hearings will begin in the Supreme Court in Pretoria in an action brought by 42 pharmaceutical companies against the Republic of South Africa in an effort to block the South African Pharmaceuticals Act which makes it possible for South Africa to produce and/or import affordable medicines to combat AIDS and other diseases?
2. Is it aware of the letter dated 22 February 2001 from Weemos, Niza and 22 other Dutch organisations seeking the Commission’s support for the South African 1997 Pharmaceuticals Act, and what does it intend to do in response to that letter?
3. In general terms, and given the poverty prevalent in developing countries, does the Commission feel that enough is currently being done in terms of making available affordable medicinal products against AIDS? Does it share my view that support must be given to targeted measures, like the one taken by Cipla in Bombay and initiatives to procure affordable medicinal products in Brazil?
4. Does it agree with me that structural solutions must also be sought to the problem of the affordability of medicinal products? Does the Commission have any specific plans? If so, what are they, and when will they be made public?
Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission
(6 April 2001)
1. The Commission is aware of the judicial proceeding launched by pharmaceutical companies before the South African High Court against the South African State concerning the law amending the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act. However, it is not the Commission’s practice to comment on proceedings before Courts, be it in Member States or in third countries.
2. As to the letter of 22 February 2001 from 24 Dutch associations, the Commission replied on 19 March 2001. A copy of the reply is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat.
3. The Commission welcomes all initiatives to lower prices on essential medicines. It is of the opinion that the Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) provides the necessary flexibility for World Trade Organisation (WTO) member to protect public health concerns. The Commi- ssion is aware of the Brazilian initiative to provide affordable medicines to its human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients and of a recent offer by Cipla of Bombay. However, it has not yet been provided with details of the initiatives.
4. It is the Commission’s firm conviction that more needs to be done to improve access to health, including making medicines available, at affordable prices, to the populations of developing countries. That is exactly the reason why the Commission put in place a global strategy by mid-2000 and complemented it by its ‘Programme for Action: Accelerated action on HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis in the context of Poverty Reduction’ (1) adopted on 21 February 2001. The Programme outlines the actions to be taken within the next five years, concentrating mainly on:
optimising the impact of health, AIDS and population interventions via Community development assistance and global partnerships;
strengthening of pharmaceutical policies and capacity building and developing capacity for local production of pharmaceuticals; 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/205
establishing a global tiered pricing system for pharmaceuticals and reducing tariffs and other costs on pharmaceuticals;
supporting WTO developing country members in implementing the TRIPs Agreement and promoting an international discussion on the link between the Agreement and public health protection issues;
strengthening and increasing support for research and development in particular for vaccines.
This Programme for Action forms the basis of the Commission’s policy with regard to communicable Diseases and poverty reduction, including the issue of access to affordable medicines.
(1) COM(2001) 96.published on the website: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2000/com2000_0585en02.pdf and http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0096en01.pdf.
(2001/C 261 E/233) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0832/01 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(20 March 2001)
Subject: Rate of progress with the Greek National Land Registry
The National Land Registry has often been described in Greece as the biggest of all the major projects. Its aim is to draw up a detailed inventory of private and public real property in order to eliminate misappropriation of public land and the destruction of forest by fire, and effectively to protect the private property of all Greek citizens. The European Union is financing this extremely costly project, though it does not seem to be progressing at the required rate, pushing its completion date into the distant future despite continuous government assurances to the contrary.
Will the Commission say how much funding in total the Community has committed for the completion of the Greek National Land Registry and what amount has been utilised to date? What is the Commission’s appraisal of the rate of progress of the entire project? How many years does the Commission calculate it will take to complete the project at the rate it has progressed of late? Are details available of the period of time it took to complete similar projects in other Member States?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(8 May 2001)
The national land register project is receiving Community assistance under the environment operational programme (OP) of the second Community support framework for Greece in the 1994-1999 program- ming period.
The initial total cost of the project was € 172 million. Following amendment of the OP referred to above, the current total cost comes to € 138,9 million with 75 % assistance under the European Regional Development Fund.
The agency responsible for carrying out the project has committed all the appropriations. To date, 96 % of the Community appropriations have been used up.
The project is not being carried out at a satisfactory speed. Whereas the relevant OP data forecast an operational land register covering 28 223 km2 by the end of 2001, available figures indicate that current work covers only 8 000 km2 and that the rate of progress corresponds to only 21 % of the forecasts. C 261 E/206 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
At the current rate the project will clearly take many years to complete, assuming that the requisite funds are available. The Commission is not at this stage able to say exactly how long the project will take, however.
No similar projects have been undertaken in other Member States, since they have each for many years possessed a land register compiled on widely differing bases using very different techniques.
(2001/C 261 E/234) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0839/01 by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Mühlenberger Loch
The Mühlenberger Loch, near Hamburg, Germany, the largest freshwater tidal mudflat in the European Union, is designated a Natura 2000 site under (a) Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds and (b) Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
Is it true that the German Federal Chancellor wrote a letter dated 15 March 2000 to the President of the Commission, requesting as a matter of urgency that the Commission give its approval to the proposed Airbus project involving developments liable to damage the ecological status of the Mühlenberger Loch?
Is it true that, shortly after the arrival of this letter, the Commission lifted its objections to development of the site based on Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive?
Is the Commission entirely satisfied that all the requirements under Article 6(4) specific to a priority habitat have been fulfilled?
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 2001)
In case of certain plans or projects, which have according to a nature assessment pursuant to Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) (Habitats Directive) negative implications for a Natura 2000 site (i.e. significant adverse effects in view of the site’s conservation objectives), the plan or project concerned may despite of the negative result be carried out only under the following conditions set out in Article 6(4) of the Directive, which are resumed as follows:
a) Absence of alternative solutions.
b) Existence of imperative reasons of overriding public interest, i.e. in case the site hosts priority natural habitat types and/or priority species, those interests must be related to human health or public safety considerations, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, or, further to an opinion of the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
c) Need to take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure the overall coherence of Natura 2000 and to inform the Commission thereof. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/207
Since the project was according to the technical assessment i.a. likely to significantly affect the priority plant species Oenanthe conioides of Annex II of the Habitats Directive, Germany asked by letter of 25 October 1999 for an opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive.
The Commission has accepted that there were no feasible alternatives for the project and that there was indeed an overriding public interest due to the European economic importance of this project being an asset in the highly competitive international market of airliner production.
After having examined the fulfilment of the conditions set out in Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive and having received in particular the assurance from Germany that more sites for this species Oenanthe conioides would be proposed in 2000, the Commission was satisfied that the provisions of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (see above) had been respected by Germany and therefore granted a favourable opinion on 19 April 2000.
The Commission confirms having received inter alia a letter from the German Chancellor of 15 March 2000.
(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
(2001/C 261 E/235) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0842/01 by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 March 2001)
Subject: Complaint No 2000/421 SG(2000) A/15164/3
On 2 December 1998, two Spanish lorries carrying 250 pigs each the property of the livestock firm Biurrum S.L., were on their way to the Caso slaughterhouse in Malveira (Portugal) when they were intercepted at Aguas de Moura by a group of thirty or forty individuals, some of them masked, carrying fire arms or other weapons. The lorries were seized and then pushed, fully loaded, down an embankment, causing the loss of all the livestock and the destruction of the vehicles.
In the wake of a lengthy procedure which initiated over two years ago, and which has still produced no results despite Portuguese Government repudiation of the events, what measures has the Commission taken in view of Complaint No 2000/4241 SG(2000) A/15164/3 lodged on 17 November 2000 against the Portuguese Republic, for violation of Community law in respect of the freedom of movement of goods?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(18 April 2001)
The Commission has examined Complaint No 2000/4241 concerning the violence committed by private individuals on 2 December 1998, which caused substantial damage to vehicles transporting live animals and the loss of a large number of animals, as well as the difficulties encountered in obtaining compensa- tion for the damage incurred.
In line with the condemnation expressed by the Portuguese authorities themselves, the Commission wishes to stress that it has always condemned violence by private individuals against the principle of free movement of goods. C 261 E/208 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Failure on the part of the responsible authorities of the Member State concerned to take the law and order measures necessary to put an end to a situation of this kind has already led the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings, and the Court of Justice to rule in its judgment of 9 December 1997 in Case C-265/95 Commission v. France that ‘by failing to adopt all necessary and proportionate measures in order to prevent the free movement of fruit and vegetables from being obstructed by actions by private individuals, the French Government has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 (now Article 28), in conjunction with Article 5 (now Article 10), of the Treaty and under the common organisations of the markets in agricultural products’ (ECR I-6959).
In the case in point, it seems however that the considerations which led the Court of Justice to the finding that France had not taken ‘all necessary and proportionate measures’, such as the length of time during which the incidents occurred and their frequency, are not easily applicable to an isolated and unforeseeable incident such as the interception of the two lorries belonging to ‘Biurrun L.S.’.
In these circumstances, the case law of the Court of Justice by which it recognised that the principle of the liability of the Member State for damage caused to private individuals by breaches of Community law which are ascribable to it is inherent in the Treaty system (see judgment of 19 November 1991, Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Francovich, ECR I-5357 and judgment of 5 March 1996, Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III, ECR I-1029) appears difficult to apply to the situation evoked in Complaint No 2000/4241.
The facts alluded to in Complaint No 2000/4241 date back to 1998, and the Commission is not aware of a repetition of such incidents which would tend to show laxness on the part of the Portuguese authorities in implementing proportionate measures to prevent private individuals from committing acts which impede the free movement of goods. Nevertheless, the Commission has asked the Portuguese authorities what steps they have taken to deal in the future with this type of situation, taking account in particular of the obligations incumbent on them under Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States (1).
(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.
(2001/C 261 E/236) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(22 March 2001)
Subject: The serving of shark products in Commission restaurants
In view of concerns about the depletion of shark stocks, will the Commission make a commitment to ensure that shark-fin soup and other shark products are not served in any of the Commission’s restaurants or at official functions?
A commitment has been made by the Quaestors of the European Parliament to ban shark from the Parliament’s restaurants.
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(2 May 2001)
The Commission can confirm that it will not serve shark fin soup or other shark products in any of its restaurants or at any official functions. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/209
(2001/C 261 E/237) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0858/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (22 March 2001)
Subject: Commission right to withdraw proposals
1. Does the Commission take the view that it is entitled effectively to ‘veto’ legislation by withdrawing from the Council and the European Parliament any proposal that it has submitted?
2. Has its view been challenged by the legal services of any other institution?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (18 April 2001)
1. Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 189a(2)) states that ‘As long as the Council has not acted, the Commission may alter its proposal at any time during the procedures leading to the adoption of a Community act’. The Commission’s power to alter proposals, combined with its right of initiative, has as its corollary the power to withdraw proposals, although the Commission cannot exercise this power unless certain conditions are met.
The Commission’s current stance is that it may withdraw proposals in two cases, namely: where there is a risk that the Council may alter the nature of the proposal or where the decision taken on the proposal may result in an infringement of the EC Treaty (first indent of Article 211 (formerly Article 155) of the EC Treaty). The Commission does not exercise this power, however, if the Council is thereby placed in the position of failing to meet a Treaty obligation, i.e. it does not exercise any right of veto; where a proposal has become outdated or has been replaced by another proposal. In such cases, it is withdrawn for purely administrative reasons. Parliament is duly informed one month before the decision to withdraw the proposal is published in the Official Journal.
2. It is not for the Commission to express an opinion on the position taken by the legal services of the other institutions. It notes, however, that no decision to withdraw a proposal has yet been the subject of proceedings before the Court of Justice.
(2001/C 261 E/238) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0859/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (22 March 2001)
Subject: Commission’s withdrawal of proposals
Will the Commission indicate the number of occasions on which it has withdrawn a proposal for a directive or regulation from the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament in each of the last five years, giving the reference number of the proposal and a brief description of the subject?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (18 April 2001)
Over the last five years no proposals have been withdrawn for reasons of substance. As regards proposals withdrawn for administrative reasons, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer given to Question E-858/01 (1).
(1) See page 210. C 261 E/210 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/239) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0868/01
by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(22 March 2001)
Subject: Visits of Taiwanese government officials to the EU
Can the Commission confirm whether it is EU policy not to allow Taiwanese government officials to visit any EU Member State? If this is the case, can the Commission reveal who took the decision?
Moreover, can the Commission explain why such a decision was taken and is still in force today, since Taiwan is a strong democratic state with amicable ties with the EU, while the PRC has repeatedly been criticised over its human rights violations?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(15 May 2001)
There is no Union policy to deny entry visas to Taiwanese government officials.
Under Council Regulation (EC) No 574/1999 of 12 March 1999 determining the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the Members States (1), Taiwanese citizens required entry visas when travelling to the Member States.
The new Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (2), which replaces Regulation No 574/1999, entered into force on 10 April 2001. The new negotiation, which maintains the visa obligation for Taiwanese citizens, is not applied by Ireland and the United Kingdom. They are free to review their policy in the matter should they so wish.
For the Member States which apply the Schengen acquis (3), decisions on the granting of individual short stay visas are made according to the rules of the Schengen Convention and the Common consular instructions. These rules require an individual assessment of every application. The consular services must verify, in particular, whether the applicant fulfils the conditions for entry as specified by the Schengen Convention (e.g. the applicant must be in possession of a valid travel document, have sufficient means of subsistence, shall not be a person for whom an alert has been issued for the purpose of refusing entry, shall not be considered to be a threat to public policy, national security or the international relations of any of the Member States applying the Convention).
Decisions on visa refusals may have been taken vis-à-vis Taiwanese citizens, in common with decisions concerning other third country nationals, in cases where the above-mentioned conditions for entry were not fulfilled.
It should also be mentioned that a Schengen visa is valid for all Member States (Ireland and United Kingdom excepted) and for Iceland and Norway.
(1) OJ L 72, 18.3.1999. (2) OJ L 81, 21.3.2001. (3) All Member States, except Ireland and United Kingdom. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/211
(2001/C 261 E/240) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0874/01 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission (13 March 2001)
Subject: Swarovski binoculars
Is it in keeping with the Treaty for a manufacturer (the firm of Swarovski in Tyrol, Austria) and/or Swarovski’s wholesaler not to supply or to refuse to supply a retailer (the firm of Saalberger in Carinthia, Austria) with its products (binoculars)? The reason given so far by Swarovski and/or its wholesaler is Saalberger’s excessively low retail price.
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (11 April 2001)
It is not possible for the Commission to take a position on the question on the basis of the information it contains. A refusal to supply, even when the reason given is the retailer’s excessively low retail price, does not in itself constitute an infringement of Article 81 (formerly Article 85) of the EC Treaty, provided that there is no anti-competitive agreement or concerted behaviour between firms which appreciably restricts competition. It may be that a refusal to supply on the ground that the retail price is too low constitutes an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 (formerly Article 86) of the EC Treaty. If this were the case, the manufacturer or supplier concerned would have to be in a dominant position on the relevant market. Furthermore, the provisions mentioned apply only if the measures are such as to affect trade between the Member States to an appreciable extent. If appropriate, the party concerned may apply to the Commission with more precise information.
(2001/C 261 E/241) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0875/01 by Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE-DE) to the Commission (13 March 2001)
Subject: Law governing the award of public contracts
The municipality of G concludes with undertaking D a buildings management contract (general contrac- tor’s agreement), also known as a ‘caretaking contract’. No public invitation to tenders was issued in respect of this contract because the municipality of G claims that it is impossible to draw up a detailed, comprehensive requirements specification. The contract is for work by skilled tradesmen and services to be performed in the field of space management (in other words, it is not development planning but the management of premises within municipality buildings), asset management and maintenance management (in other words, public works).
The total amount of the contract is not known: it might be more or less than € 200 000.
The general contractor or facility management undertaking is using external subcontractors and its own undertakings to perform the contract and is not issuing public invitations to tender for the individual contracts.
It is claimed that the facility management contractor (the general contractor) has no need to issue public invitations to tender because they are private undertakings, and that negotiations can be held with subcontractors before and after the contract is concluded.
The aim of the municipality of G in so doing is inter alia to keep as many contracts as possible within the remit of the municipality.
The trade associations and chambers of trade regard this conduct as a breach of the EU directives on the award of public contracts and consider that it renders meaningless the German VOB (Verdingungsordnung für Bauleistungen contracting rules for the award of public works contracts) and VOL (Verdingungsord- nung für Leistungen contracting rules for the award of public supply contracts) adopted under implementing regulations by the ministers of the Länder. C 261 E/212 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
What is the legal situation with regard to contracts the value of which is less than € 200 000?
What is the legal situation with regard to contracts the value of which is more than € 200 000?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 2001)
The municipality mentioned in the given example is a contracting authority in terms of European public procurement law. Therefore, Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (1) and Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (2) as amended by Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 (3) applies to certain public works and public service contracts of the municipality.
The municipality has to put the building management services out for tender if the following two conditions are met: the services are building-cleaning services, property management services or integrated engineering services in terms of categories 12 and 14 of Annex I A of Directive 92/50/EEC and the overall value of the services to be executed is at least € 200 000. In contrast, the municipality has to put public works out for tender only in case the overall value of the works is at least € 5 million. If the building management services cover both public services and public works, the application of the Directive has to be decided on grounds of what the main performance of the contract is (works or services).
The contract has to be put out for tender via publication of a tender notice. In general, the municipality must award the contract under the open or restricted procedure. Under particular circumstances, the municipality may award a public service contract by negotiated procedure with prior publication. This is the case when the nature of the services to be procured, in particular in the case of intellectual services, is such that contract specifications cannot be established with sufficient precision to permit the award of the contract by selecting the best tender according to the rules governing open or restricted procedures. The burden of proving the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying the negotiated procedure lies on the municipality seeking to rely on the circumstances.
From the point of view of European law, the municipality is not hindered from awarding the contract to a general contractor and allowing him to subcontract with third parties. In any case the contract of the municipality must have been put out for tender via publication of a tender notice. Furthermore, it must have been awarded according to the rules of the respective Directive. The rules of the Directives apply to the subcontracting to third parties only in case the general contractor himself is a contracting authority in terms of the Directives.
In case the overall value of the contracts is below the thresholds, Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/37/EEC do not apply. Nonetheless the municipality has to abide by Community law while awarding the contracts. In particular, the municipality has to behave in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination as laid down in the EC Treaty.
(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. (2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993. (3) OJ L 328, 28.11.1997.
(2001/C 261 E/242) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0887/01 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(27 March 2001)
Subject: Annual quantities of depleted uranium imported into and exported from EU Member States
Will the Commission publish a table of the annual quantities of depleted uranium respectively imported into and exported from EU Member States for each year since 1991? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/213
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(23 May 2001)
Since 1988, the Commission (the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat)) has collected and published statistics on extra- and intra-Community trade. The information sources for these statistics are customs declarations for the extra-Community data and Intrastat declarations for intra- Community data. Data on trade in depleted uranium is collected on the basis of the products defined in the following subheadings of the combined nomenclature:
Subheading 2844.30-11:
Cermets containing uranium depleted in U 235 or compounds of this product.
Subheading 2844.30-19:
Uranium depleted into U 235; alloys, dispersions, ceramic products and mixtures containing uranium depleted in U 235 or compounds of this product (excluding cermets).
Subheading 2844.30-91:
Compounds of uranium depleted in U 235 or of thorium, whether or not mixed together (Euratom) other than thorium salts.
Individual figures for uranium depleted in U 235 are not available.
Note: For certain Member States, trade in products coming under subheadings 2844.30-19 and 2844.30-91 is confidential and therefore not published.
By way of example, figures on the above-mentioned products have been supplied in an annex that has been sent to the Honourable Member directly as well as to the Parliament’s Secretariat.
(2001/C 261 E/243) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0897/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(19 March 2001)
Subject: CAP net transfers
On 31 January 2001, the Commission presented its second report on economic and social cohesion. In table A.26 of the annex, concerning CAP net transfers, the Commission reaches the conclusion that Portugal, one of the EU’s poorest countries, is a net CAP contributor, despite the fact that the amount contributed fell between 1993 and 1998. In its first report on economic and social cohesion, the Commission had reached the same conclusion.
Can the Commission provide me with:
the preliminary data for all the Member States, and the method employed for the calculations, which were used to arrive at the conclusions of table A.26, given that these details are not explained on pages 12 and 13 of COM(2000) 24 nor the annexes thereto;
the figures (net contributors and beneficiaries) for all the Member States from 1994 to 2001 (estimated), at standard prices;
if possible, the figures for the same period offset by the intra Community trade flows in and out of each Member State? C 261 E/214 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(8 May 2001)
The Commission is sending the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat a copy of the results of the study used as the basis for the section on the contribution of the common agricultural policy to cohesion in the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (1).
(1) COM(2001) 24 final.
(2001/C 261 E/244) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0898/01 by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE), Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE), Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Francesco Speroni (TDI) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: Divergences between estimates and final figures in Italian macroeconomic data: impact on the Commission’s assessments
On 1 March 2001 ISTAT (the Italian National Statistical Institute) published the annual final figures for the Italian national accounts, with its estimates for gross domestic product (GDP) for 2000 and corrections of the estimates for 1997-1999 with respect to the estimates given last year.
These data reveal considerable variations concerning household consumption (+ 1,5 %), imports (+ 1,5 %), investments (+ 1,3 %) and GDP (+ 0,7 %).
It is difficult to reconcile the data issued for 2000 with the statistical information that had been made available to date. The average revision to the GDP growth rate for the three-year period 1997-1999 is over 14 %, the household consumption growth rate has been revised by over 30 % and the growth rate in investments by over 70 %.
ISTAT has also issued a list of the new statistical sources on which it has based the revision of its estimates. There is a significant discrepancy between the signals which emerge from data on economic trends (including the national quarterly economic accounts) and the annual final data.
The conflict between the information on economic trends and the annual data prompts the fear that the short-term economic indicators on which ISTAT bases its own quarterly accounts are becoming more and more biased and less reliable.
Can the Commission say:
whether the new statistical sources used by ISTAT are known to the Community institutions?
whether the revisions made by ISTAT have any effect on the assessments of the Italian economy, which under the EC Treaty it is bound to evaluate?
finally, what action it intends to take in this regard?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2001)
The Italian national statistical institute (ISTAT) has indeed published the annual figures for Italy’s gross domestic product for 2000, plus the corrections for 1997-1999, which turned out to be fairly substantial. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/215
The scale of these corrections may be due to a number of factors, such as the difficult initial phase of implementing the new system of national accounts the European System of National and Regional Accounts in the Community (ESA 95) which includes new statistical sources and major changes to the concepts used in the previous system. The other Member States are in the same situation and it will take a while until the systems for calculation have settled down properly.
In the case of other Member States, major corrections of their growth rates (estimates for 2000 against 1999 and for 1998) related to the following aggregates:
GDP: Belgium: − 0,3 Spain: + 0,4 Netherlands:+ 0,4 United Kingdom: + 0,5 Italy: + 0,2
Household consumption: Belgium: − 0,5 Spain: + 0,4 United Kingdom: + 0,8 Italy: + 0,5
Investments: Belgium: + 0,9 Germany: + 1,6 Spain: + 0,5 Netherlands: − 1,1 Italy: + 0,7
Another factor in the size of the corrections is the increasing pressure on Member States see the Council’s Action Plan of 29 September 2000 on the statistics required for Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) to provide quarterly GDP statistics at increasingly short notice. As a result, in the space of one year the period for reporting results for Italy has gone from 80 days to 70 days after the end of the quarter, with rapid estimates expected within 45 days.
One thing is certain: under ESA 95 the national accounts of the Member States are now established according to harmonised concepts and it is the task of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) to ensure that these concepts are correctly applied.
Turning to the honourable Members’ specific questions, the following information can be provided:
The Commission (Eurostat) is familiar to some extent with the new sources of statistics for drawing up national accounts in Italy, but the detailed description has still to be completed by ISTAT before it is officially communicated to Eurostat. This is because, under the new ESA, Member States are required to provide detailed descriptions of the sources and methods used to calculate gross domestic product (GDP), as was the case under the previous system in the early 1990s. The Member States are currently working on this and their reports are expected shortly.
In its assessment of the Member States’ economies, the Commission naturally relies on the most recent available figures that they transmit to Eurostat. The correction of national accounts for the period 1997-1999 carried out on 1 March 2001 led to a re-evaluation of the dynamics and make-up of the growth over that period. However, the correction of growth in GDP in real terms, which was the main item of data in the whole evaluation exercise, turned out to be not exceptionally high compared both to the previous corrections and to those carried out for the other Member States (see the data in the first paragraph). Moreover, the final estimate for GDP growth in real terms for 2000 tallies with the estimate the Commission made in autumn 2000. Lastly, this correction does not affect the Commis- sion’s evaluation of the current economic situation. C 261 E/216 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Eurostat which is responsible for the collecting, checking and validating the Member States’ data in the various statistical fields will continue to perform this task, especially in connection with the inventories of sources and methods which it will be receiving shortly. These inventories make it possible to conduct a more sophisticated evaluation of the conformity of Italian practices with Community standards.
(2001/C 261 E/245) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0899/01 by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission (19 March 2001)
Subject: Long-line fishing
A recent report by BirdWatch Ireland stated that between 50 000 and 100 000 northern fulmars were killed in the North-east Atlantic every year as a result of long-line fishing. Can the Commission state whether it has statistical evidence which would substantiate this claim and whether it believes that there are any measures and technical solutions for vessels which would prevent these deaths? Does it envisage bringing forward any proposals in this area?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 April 2001)
The Commission as such has no self-generated statistical evidence on this topic. The Commission is aware of reports by Birdlife International of surveys carried out on Norwegian longliners off north-west Norway and extrapolated to include probable effects of Faroese and Icelandic longliners giving rise to estimates of the order cited. These reports appear to have been reiterated by Bird Watch Ireland.
Preliminary information received by the Commission from replies to a questionnaire issued last August 2000 indicate that catches of sea birds, although they occur, do not constitute a major threat in Community waters. The main problems seem to be caused by non-Community vessels fishing either in international waters or in their own waters. The Community has no direct legal power to control the activities of non-Community vessels in these areas.
The Commission has participated in meetings leading to the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) International Plan of Action for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in longline fisheries and has drafted a Community action plan on the basis of information supplied by Member States in response to the questionnaire previously mentioned. This draft was submitted to the appropriate body of FAO in February 2001.
In Antarctic waters, to protect albatrosses and other birds, the Community has already adopted a number of mitigation measures (1)(2), and some or all of these might be considered for other areas as required.
The measures are: Using bird-scaring lines with plastic streamers attached; Weighting lines so that they sink faster and hence cause less risk; Prohibiting discharge of offal at sea which attracts the birds; Setting lines at night when the birds are less likely to be foraging; Using only thawed bait which sinks faster.
Finally, it might be pointed out that, although catches of seabirds are regrettable and probably avoidable, the cited magnitude of catches of northern fulmars are not such that the sustainability of the fulmar populations, currently estimated at 10-12 million individuals, is threatened.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 66/1998 of 18 December 1998, OJ L 6, 10.1.1998. (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2479/1998 of 12 November 1998, OJ L 309, 19.11.1998. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/217
(2001/C 261 E/246) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0913/01 by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: VAT on restaurants
Traditional and fast food restaurants are subject to different VAT rates in the various Member States.
In the European Union as a whole, 8 out of 15 countries now apply reduced rates to traditional restaurants equivalent to those applicable to fast food outlets.
In France demonstrations are currently being held to call for a reduced VAT rate to be applied to traditional restaurants as well as to fast-food catering.
The retention of a high VAT rate would harm traditional restaurateurs, their staff and their customers, while a reduced rate would permit this dynamic, job-creating sector to develop.
Does the Commission envisage taking any action in this area? Why not propose a directive seeking to apply a reduced rate of VAT to traditional restaurants as well as to fast food outlets in all the Member States?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(27 April 2001)
Under current Community law in this matter the standard minimum VAT rate of 15 % is applicable to restaurant services (see Article 12(1) 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 (1)).
Member States also have the option of applying a lower rate of not less than 5 % to food supplies. This is the basis on which fast food outlets are allowed to charge less VAT on take-away meals.
However, some provisions of the Directive (Article 28(2)) set out derogations which allow Member States to apply a lower VAT rate to restaurants for a transitional period, subject to certain conditions.
Member States where this applies are those which were required to raise their standard rate of VAT by more than 2 % on 1 January 1991 and those which were already applying a lower rate to restaurants at that date. They may apply or go on applying a lower rate to this sector.
It should also be noted that restaurant services would have been eligible for a lower VAT rate if, when Directive 1999/85/EC on labour-intensive services (2) was being negotiated, the Council had not amended the Commission’s proposal. It was the Council that limited the scope of the proposal to an exhaustive list of eligible services, excluding restaurants.
As provided for in the Commission’s communication on a new VAT strategy (3), re-examination of the temporary derogations from VAT rates and the period of their application will be among the points considered in connection with the rationalisation of VAT rates which is to follow the review scheduled for 2002 of the experiment with labour intensive services.
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. Latest amendment: Council Directive 2001/41/EC of 19 January 2001, plus corrigendum in OJ L 22, 24.1.2001 OJ L 26, 27.1.2001. (2) OJ L 277, 28.10.1999. (3) COM(2000) 348 final. C 261 E/218 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/247) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0920/01 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission (28 March 2001)
Subject: Reply to Parliamentary Question to the Commission No E-3400/00 on whether or not French is an official language in Valle d’Aosta
With regard to the reply to the above Parliamentary Question on whether or not French is an official language in Valle d’Aosta, I would like to point out two facts: bilingualism in Valle d’Aosta is founded on a constitutional law which is set out in the Special Statute of Autonomy of 1948; the Italian Constitutional Court ruled, in judgment No 156 of 11 December 1969, that the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Statute granted equal status to the French and Italian languages on the basis of the established fact of full bilingualism in the region, and that as a result the equal use of both languages is guaranteed under the constitution, ruling out the description of one or other language as the ‘official’ one in Valle d’Aosta (in contrast to the situation in the multilingual province of Bolzano, where, under Article 84 of the Statute, Italian is considered the official language).
This implies that for Valle d’Aosta French is an official language. Does the Commission not therefore think that it should reconsider the position expressed in its previous reply?
Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission (7 May 2001)
The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for the legal information about the status of French in Valle d’Aosta and the bilingual status of this Italian region.
As already explained in the answer to question E-3400/00 from the Honourable Member (1), the ‘Hello Europe’ CD-ROM is designed to give an initial presentation of the Member States that make up the Union.
The presentations of each Member State contain a brief message in the official language(s) of the Member State. The languages were chosen on the basis of their status of official language at Member State level. For example, in Finland, Swedish and Finnish are the two official languages of the Republic, and the CD-ROM includes an oral presentation in these two languages. In Spain, while the languages of the Autonomous Communities are also official languages, Spanish is the official language of the Member State, and the oral presentation is conducted only in Spanish, while mentioning the official languages of the Autonomous Communities.
In the case of Italy, the official language of the Italian Republic is Italian, as stated in Article 1 of Law No 482 of 15 December 1999 on the historical linguistic minorities. The presentation of the CD-ROM is therefore in Italian and only mentions this language at national level. However, the linguistic diversity of Italy is described in the section of the CD-ROM dealing with the population, which includes the following description: ‘The official language is Italian, but German is spoken in South Tyrol, French in Valle d’Aosta, Slovene in Trieste and Gorizia, and LadinS in several valleys of South Tyrol. In all, 12 languages are spoken in Italy’.
(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 157.
(2001/C 261 E/248) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0926/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (28 March 2001)
Subject: Responsibility for the appointment of R. Berthelot
Ex-Commissioner Cresson’s personal friend, R. Berthelot, was appointed in March 1997 as an expert on aids matters. Mr Berthelot did not have the necessary qualifications and the Commission has now called for repayment of the fees Mr Berthelot was paid. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/219
But who was responsible for the erroneous appointment? Has any reprimand been issued to the deputy director-general at the Commission who signed Mr Berthelot’s contract of appointment?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(7 May 2001)
Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and are ongoing in relation to a number of officials and/or other staff in connection with the file on Mr Berthelot’s contract.
The appointing authority has also decided to undertake an additional inquiry to clear up any responsi- bilities of other parties connected with this matter.
The Commission will inform Parliament of the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings as soon as the final conclusions have been reached after due process.
(2001/C 261 E/249) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0939/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: The Swedish exemption concerning the cadmium content of phosphate fertilisers
On accession Sweden was given an exemption for its maximum values for the cadmium content in phosphate fertilisers until 31 December 1998. Nothing then happened, but the Commission has since proposed as a compromise that the exemption should be extended for a further three years while the Commission reviewed the need for common measures in this field. Sweden also had its exemption regarding the use of cadmium as a pigment extended by three years while a further review took place.
What is now happening on this matter? Will the EU bring itself into line with the Swedish exemptions or vice-versa, or will there be a compromise between the two positions?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(22 May 2001)
The Commission, together with the Member States, is currently evaluating risks to health and the environment linked to the presence of cadmium in fertilisers. When this evaluation is complete, the Commission will, if necessary, issue a proposal concerning any measures at Community level.
A study of the use of cadmium as a pigment, a stabiliser and for plating metals was recently completed, and is currently being examined by the Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE). This study aims to update previous evaluations of risks to health and the environment.
In the light of these results and any other relevant information, the provisions of Council Directive 76/ 769/EEC of 27 July 1976 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (1) could be amended by 1 January 2003.
(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. C 261 E/220 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/250) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0962/01 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 March 2001)
Subject: Presence of SRM in meat from Dutch slaughterhouses
Following the recent inquiry in the Netherlands prompted by the discovery in Great Britain of SRM in meat from a number of Dutch slaughterhouses, I should like to ask:
Can the Commission indicate whether SRM has been found in other Member States in meat processed by slaughterhouses?
What ideas does the Commission have for encouraging inspections of compliance with existing rules by the slaughterhouses referred to above?
Why is it that only inspections in Great Britain have revealed the presence of SRM?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(23 April 2001)
The Commission has been gathering information about the implementation of Commission Decision 2000/418/EEC of 29 June 2000 regulating the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), by Member States since the entry into force of the main provisions in October 2000.
Since December 2000, the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office has carried out missions to eleven Member States, to assess the implementation of the main bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) Community measures. Decision 2000/418/EC was included in the scope of these missions. Further missions are currently taking place. Once the corresponding final reports have been completed, in accordance with the official procedures, they will be transmitted to the Parliament and published on the internet site of the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection. From the information contained in the draft reports, it appears that in most of the Member States visited the controls carried out by the relevant authorities regarding the removal of specified risk material (SRM) at slaughterhouses were considered to be inefficient and in need of improvement, if the presence of SRM, particularly spinal cord, is to be totally excluded.
Protection of consumer health is one of the prime objectives of the Commission. Any potential health risk relating to BSE is taken extremely seriously. To this end, a comprehensive series of Community measures has been put in place. The removal of SRM is considered by the Commission as being the most important measure to protect public health. Member States are responsible for its implementation and enforcement, as it is generally the case for other Community rules. As mentioned above, this is then audited by the Food and Veterinary Office.
From the information available to the Commission, the British Food Standards Agency has issued instructions to local authorities and to the Meat Hygiene Service to step up checks on imported meat arriving at licensed meat cutting plants in the United Kingdom. This action has been decided first to ensure continued consumer protection from potential health risks, particularly those associated with BSE, but also in anticipation of a possible increase in imported beef because of the current foot and mouth outbreak.
(1) OJ L 158, 30.6.2000. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/221
(2001/C 261 E/251) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0973/01 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(20 March 2001)
Subject: Driving and diabetes
I refer to my Written Question E-2542/99 (1) and to the answer by Mrs Palacio which referred to the Commission’s answer E-495/98 (2) to Mr Howitt. In answer to my question, the Commission confirms that no developments since 1998 have prompted it to change its position from that which it indicated to Mr Howitt.
However, the Commission’s statements to Mr Howitt (and also to Mrs Waddington at the same time) indicate expressly that the Commission had no substantial evidence at that time to support the belief that people with insulin-dependent diabetes had a greater propensity to be involved in accidents than other drivers.
Is it still the case that the Commission has no such evidence? Is there, in fact, any such evidence?
(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 161. (2) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 75.
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(20 April 2001)
Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991, on driving licences (1), and more particularly its Annex III, deals with minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving power driven vehicles, which also includes Diabetes Mellitus. These minimum standards have been based upon advice by medical experts in this field, rather than upon statistical evidence relating to traffic accidents involving people with insulin dependent diabetes.
The need for further investigation in this field was expressed by the Council in its Resolution of 26 June 2000 (2) on road safety which requested the revision of the minimum requirements of Annex III. Consequently, the Commission decided to launch research on diabetes in the context of the 5th Research and Technological Development Framework Programme. The results of this, and other national studies, will be analysed by a special Working Group of the Committee on the driving licence, composed of experts in this field. Depending on the conclusions of this special working group, this may lead to a revision of the minimum requirements of Annex III of Directive 91/439/EEC, in due time.
(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. (2) OJ C 218, 31.7.2000.
(2001/C 261 E/252) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0998/01 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: 1999 discharge agriculture
The information provided by the Commission in connection with question 2.7 of the second questionnaire on the granting of the discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 1999 financial year does not reply to the questions raised in various aspects. Can the Commission therefore clarify the following points:
With regard to question 2.7(d): Can the Commission clarify the concept of production aid in the context of its answer in relation to the support scheme for olive oil? With regard to both olive oil and milk, is the Commission referring to the reports made by the Member States during 1999 or to irregularities occurring in 1999? C 261 E/222 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Table 2 on the clearance of accounts process is also difficult to understand. Can the Commission make these comparisons in the context of fraud and irregularities, excluding market mechanisms intended to restrict surplus production?
Can the Commission make a comparison between the two sectors based on the same timescale? Can the Commission confirm that, as regards the milk sector, the Member States notified only € 4,2 million in fraud in 1999? Can the Commission confirm that no deduction was made from the milk sector in 1999 as part of the clearance of accounts process? Can the Commission explain how the organisation of payment schemes can justify the disparities between the milk sector and the olive oil sector?
Given the difference in scale between these sectors, the Commission’s figures show that the Member States are detecting hundreds of times more irregularities involving olive oil than involving milk. Does the Commission consider it reasonable to assume that olive oil producers are hundreds of times more predisposed to commit irregularities than milk producers?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(1 June 2001)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(2001/C 261 E/253) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1018/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(30 March 2001)
Subject: Short-term unemployment rates
1. Will the Commission provide a time series of the short-term unemployed (defined as those seeking work for less than one year and also, if available, for less than six months) for each EU Member State for each quarter of the last ten years?
2. Will it also express this series as a short-term unemployment rate (i.e. as a percentage of the labour force)?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(16 May 2001)
Annual series on the number of long-term unemployed (those seeking work for one year or more) and the corresponding unemployment rate were compiled by Eurostat for the synthesis report presented to the Stockholm European Council, the long-term unemployment rate being one of the structural indicators shown in the annex to the report. Similar annual data on short-term unemployment (less than twelve months) can be obtained by simple calculation.
Compilation of reliable quarterly series cannot be envisaged until such time as a continuous labour force survey is introduced in all the Member States. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/223
(2001/C 261 E/254) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1037/01 by Giorgos Katiforis (PSE) to the Commission
(22 March 2001)
Subject: Use of depleted uranium munitions in Yugoslavia
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has issued instructions through its Personnel Department specifying the protective measures that UNHCR staff should take when operating in the area where depleted uranium munitions where used during the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia.
These instructions include:
(a) that no pregnant women should be sent to Kosovo,
(b) that staff should be offered an alternative posting upon request and
(c) that any official sent to Kosovo must have their file marked ‘service in the field’ to facilitate any claim for compensation in the event of illness resulting from contamination.
Can the Commission inform Parliament of any similar measures it has taken to protect its officials working in the areas contaminated by depleted uranium munitions in Yugoslavia?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2001)
The Commission naturally seeks to ensure that members of its staff are not exposed to abnormal health risks in the course of their work.
The Commission has consequently made appropriate arrangements to safeguard staff working in parts of the Balkan region that may be affected by the use of depleted uranium munitions.
These arrangements included identifying the staff who were in the region after the bombardments, stepping up attention by the Medical Service, analysing the data available on possible risks, informing the staff, assessing the need for systematic individual monitoring, and deciding not to make check-ups compulsory but to offer them on a voluntary basis in order to reassure those who asked for them.
Regarding the specific points raised by the Honourable Member, the situation is as follows:
The Medical Service systematically sees every official or temporary member of staff who is transferred to a region outside the Community. Discussions are held on all relevant medical matters, and appropriate advice is provided, including advice related to an existing or possible future pregnancy.
Under the Commission’s general policy on mobility all vacant posts are brought to the attention of officials. Officials posted in the Balkans who wished to find a new posting could, of course, do so.
The Commission has no-fault liability (its fault does not have to be demonstrated) where the health of its officials and temporary members of staff in general is concerned, as regards both the reimbursement of medical expenses and the payment of invalidity pensions. In any event, details of an employee’s career, including the different places of employment, are systematically entered in their personal file. C 261 E/224 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Furthermore, the Commission asked a group of independent experts to assess the radiological risk to health of depleted uranium. The expert group delivered its report on 6 March 2001. Its main findings were as follows:
No evidence was found establishing a link between health problems affecting certain military personnel who had returned from the Balkans and their possible radiation exposure to uranium; the results available do not justify systematic individual monitoring but certain tests could be valuable for reassuring concerned people, confirming the absence of significant incorporation of uranium.
In this context the Commission will invite staff posted to the Balkans, on the occasion of their annual medical check-up, to undergo a full physical examination and to complete a questionnaire. On this basis it may be decided to carry out a screening test.
(2001/C 261 E/255) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1050/01 by Carlos Lage (PSE) to the Commission
(5 April 2001)
Subject: Consolidated texts of directives
There are still no freely available consolidated texts of directives that have been amended or expanded to incorporate technical adjustments. Even where all that is involved is unofficial, purely practical simplifica- tions to legislative acts, the consolidated text of a directive is still ultimately the one that is used in legal proceedings and which alone makes it possible to keep the work transparent and simple.
It is intolerable that consolidated versions have to be obtained from private firms that make money in the process. This is a case of insufficient transparency, which should be eliminated in accordance with Article 255 of the Amsterdam Treaty. Sufficient transparency can at all events only be said to apply when access to documents is possible without disproportionate expense, and that is not the case when trying to track down consolidated texts.
1. Why can the Commission not issue consolidated versions of amended directives at regular intervals?
2. Why are the current consolidated versions of directives not at least posted on the Internet and freely accessible?
3. When will the Commission finally be in a position to change this untenable situation?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(1 June 2001)
1. and 3. Since 1999 the Commission has considerably boosted efforts to provide consolidated versions of the legislation that is in force, the aim being to consolidate all current acts within three years (by mid- 2003) and to ensure that existing consolidated versions are constantly updated.
2. Currently, more than 40 % of legislative acts are available in consolidated form, free of charge, under the heading ‘Legislation in force’ on the website http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/225
(2001/C 261 E/256) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1058/01 by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(5 April 2001)
Subject: Town-twinning grants
Can the Commission state whether, in the 2002 programme for the promotion of town-twinning, it will be prepared to change the rules so that twin towns situated within the 250 kilometres limit but separated by a sea crossing are eligible to receive town-twinning grants? This change would take account of the fact that sea crossings cost considerably more than the equivalent overland journey.
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(8 May 2001)
The subject raised by the Honourable Member has been discussed with the partner organisations involved in town twinning (in principle the Council of European Municipalities and Regions and the Fédération Mondiale des Cités Unies) on several occasions, most recently during the consultations of October 2000 concerning introduction of the new procedure for calls for proposals.
There are two reasons for the Commission’s decision to introduce the 250 km limit for the eligibility of projects involving exchanges between citizens of twin towns. The first is that the Commission wishes to encourage the creation of links between towns and cities which are further apart, as it feels that distance constitutes a major obstacle to closer links between European citizens. The second reason is that below a certain threshold the administration costs involved in processing a grant application exceed the amount of the grant itself, which the Commission feels runs contrary to the principles of sound management.
Nevertheless, the Commission acknowledges the relevance of the Honourable Member’s question and is willing to examine the possibility of changing current practice at the meeting which will be organised in autumn 2001 to take stock of how the new procedure for awarding town-twinning grants is functioning.
(2001/C 261 E/257) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1089/01 by Pier Casini (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(27 March 2001)
Subject: Road works to improve the junction between the Via Emilia and the SS (state highway) Selice Montanara and link the Via Borghi to the Via Marzabotto, in the commune of Imola
Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community requires the European Union to ensure ‘a high level of human health protection’. Community policy on the environment, as specified in Article 174 et seq. of the EC Treaty, is based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified as a priority. The programme of the current (Swedish) presidency of the Council, moreover, reflects its interest in environmental problems. The preventive principle is enshrined in the provisions of Council Directives 85/337/EEC (1) and 97/11/ EC (2) relating to environmental impact assessment, which recently gave rise to an action for infringement (1999/2181) brought on the basis of Article 226 against Italy with reference to the legislation of certain regions, including Emilia Romagna. Yet the Commune of Imola has allowed work to begin on the project which is the subject of the present question despite the absence of an adequate acoustic impact study or indeed any form of environmental impact assessment. The opinion of the regional environmental agency C 261 E/226 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(ARPA) for Emilia Romagna is basically opposed to the projected road works being carried out without suitable modifications. This matter is also the subject of Petition no. 553/2000 to the European Parliament, which the Committee on Petitions accepted as admissible on 24 January 2001.
In view of the foregoing:
1. What immediate measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure the relevant Italian authorities comply with Community environmental legislation, which the Commune of Imola has flagrantly breached, in the light of the settled case-law of the Court of Justice and the position adopted by the Commission itself in drawing up its reasoned opinion in connection with infringement proceedings 1999/2181?
2. To avert the risk of serious and irreparable damage to the health of citizens living in the area concerned and their right to a wholesome environment, what urgent action does the Commission consider it would be appropriate to support to ensure a serious analysis of the environmental and acoustic impact is carried out and to make such an assessment an essential prerequisite for the implementation of the second stage of the project, which has not been started yet and which, unlike the first part, is due to be financed entirely from public funds?
(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
(25 April 2001)
According to Council Directives 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) and 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), which has modified Directive 85/337/EEC, Member States are obliged to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Projects covered by the Directive are identified in the Annexes. The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law and, therefore, in this case, of assessing whether the Community legislation on environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been correctly applied in the Member State concerned.
On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the work to which the question makes reference, an urban road and a junction with an extra-urban road, could fall either into class 10 d) Construction of roads, harbours, including fishing harbours, and airfields (projects not listed in Annex I) of Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments or into class 10 e) Construction of roads, harbours and port installations, including fishing harbours (projects not included in Annex I) of Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified by Directive 97/11/EC.
Under Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments, projects falling into Annex II are to be made subject to an EIA where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. However, Member States are considered to be obliged to make a pre-assessment in order to establish whether Annex II projects need to be made subject to an EIA procedure. Under Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified, for Annex II projects, Member States are obliged to determine through a case-by-case examination or thresholds or by the setting of criteria whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.
In order to identify the correct Community law to be applied it is necessary to check when the request for development consent was submitted to the competent authority: projects whose requests for development consent were submitted to a competent authority before 14 March 1999 are governed by the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC (prior to its 1997 amendment). 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/227
The Commission has already opened a complaint on the project and a letter has been sent to the Italian authorities to request information on the issue. The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to ensure the observance of Community law.
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2001/C 261 E/258) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1108/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(28 March 2001)
Subject: EU-US ‘safe harbour’ agreement on data protection
In October 2000 the Commission predicted that 100 US companies would sign up for Safe Harbour during its first month, with up to 1 000 joining within a year.
How many companies have joined to date?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2001)
The ‘Safe harbor’ arrangement entered into effect on 1 November 2000. Thirty American based companies have joined so far (30 March 2001). The list of companies is publicly available at http://www.export.gov/ safeharbor/.
The estimates to which the Honorable Member refers in his question are those made by the American Department of Commerce in October 2000 and subsequently relayed to the Parliament by the Commi- ssion.
(2001/C 261 E/259) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1111/01 by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Commission
(6 April 2001)
Subject: Dublin Office of the Bureau for Lesser Used Languages
The Dublin Office of the Bureau for Lesser Used Languages has played a central role in helping to safeguard and promote the lesser used languages throughout the European Community. Now the expertise of the Bureau, built up over many years, is being directly and unjustly jeopardised by Commission threats to close it down in the interests of costs and utterly against the interests of all those who speak lesser used languages throughout the Community. Does the Commission agree that the EU must show respect for cultural diversity and will it now do so by committing itself to the retention of the Dublin Bureau for Lesser Used Languages? C 261 E/228 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(18 May 2001)
The European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL), which has offices in Dublin and Brussels, is the beneficiary of a Community running costs grant, which makes up some 80 % of its budget. A particular condition of this type of financing is that the organisation’s administrative costs must be kept to a strict minimum. Eligible costs are those necessary to ensure the normal running of the beneficiary organisation and enable it to pursue its stated objectives. In the case in point, EBLUL’s cost structure, as set out in its initial grant application for the 2001-2002 period, was not consistent with these prescriptions. Adminis- trative expenditure had risen to nearly 75 % of the budget, and a projection of trends in wages and overhead costs relative to income demonstrated that, unless there was a significant restructuring, EBLUL could not continue for very much longer to serve the regional and minority language communities of the Community in any substantial way.
The Commission therefore requested that, during the course of the forthcoming grant period, EBLUL should reorganise its activities so as to reduce expenditure on salaries and overheads considerably and effect a significant and real transfer of resources from administrative expenses to practical action in support of the regional and minority language communities of Europe.
As an independent non-governmental organisation, EBLUL was alone responsible for deciding what steps must be taken to meet the Commission’s request. In its final grant application for the 2001-2002 period, the organisation has indicated that it intends to reduce its administrative costs during the course of the year to approximately one half of the total budget while maintaining a presence in Ireland, though on a lower cost basis than at present. This measure will enable the organisation to step up considerably its information, lobbying, networking and promotion activities in favour of regional and minority languages.
The Commission considers that its action in this matter has contributed to ensuring that the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages can continue to play a significant role in the Community policies for safeguarding linguistic and cultural diversity.
(2001/C 261 E/260) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1134/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 April 2001)
Subject: Capital flows between eurozone countries
Will the Commission please examine the scale of capital flows between the eurozone countries since the launch of the euro compared with the periods before and state whether there has been an increase in the scale of such flows and, if so, by how much?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(1 June 2001)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2716/00 (1).
That answer is still valid.
(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/229
(2001/C 261 E/261) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1158/01 by Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 April 2001)
Subject: The Commission’s assessment of the IPI contract
The Italian Ministry for Industry’s Institute for Industrial Promotion (IPI) has published a Europe-wide invitation to tender, with a 24 April 2001 deadline and for a value of ITL 1 400 000 000 (€ 723 040), to carry out a feasibility study on the establishment of an International Network of SMEs (INSME).
The project was submitted to the OCSE in Bologna in June 2000.
Many OCSE countries expressed serious doubts about the project, which is being funded by the Italian Government.
One of the members of the INSME’s Steering Group is the European Commission.
The Commission already has a large number of SME networks, covering all the countries affected by the INSME. Under the 2001-2005 European Multiannual Programme, it intends to coordinate them with the support of the Euro Info Centre Network.
The IPI hosted a Euro Info Centre for a number of years. However, having failed to pass a Commission quality control test, it lost its own Euro Info Centre and kept an ‘associated’ second-category centre.
The INSME, its activities and the feasibility study simply duplicate the Commission’s programme policy, thereby causing public funds to be wasted.
How does the Commission intend to clarify this situation in order to avoid being involved in activities and feasibility studies which have been carried out before? How can it justify this waste of public resources, given that there already exists a network of Euro Info Centres which covers all the regions concerned by these services and surveys?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(4 May 2001)
The feasibility study launched by the IPI (Istituto per la promozione industriale) on the establishment of an International Network of SMEs (INSME), which is supported by the OECD and its member states, and in which the Commission does not play a direct role, is very different from the Commission’s project, the purpose of which is to rationalise and streamline the existing Community business support networks, as described in the communication of 13 February 2001 (1).
Indeed, the INSME initiative is very different in terms of its nature (virtual web network), its geographical coverage (all OECD countries) and its purpose (to create a new international network without necessarily integrating the national or regional networks).
The Commission would like to point out to the Honourable Member that it is not involved in the project financially or in terms of human resources, but it is naturally following this project very closely in order to ensure that it remains complementary to Community initiatives.
IPI has been a member of the Euro Info Centre network (EIC) since 1990. Following evaluations of its performance relative to its contractual obligations, carried out in 1996 and 1997 by an independent audit team, IPI was obliged to change its status. Since 1998, the organisation has changed from a standard EIC to an associate member, a profile which takes better account of its particular characteristics. C 261 E/230 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
The Commission will continue to support the Euro Info Centre network. This is not a virtual network but an actual network, established at local level as close as possible to businesses in order to respond to their needs, offer them tailor-made assistance and communicate their concerns to the Commission so that it can adapt its legislation and programmes accordingly.
(1) Progress report and future lines of the initiative to rationalise and streamline the existing Community business support networks. Communication from Mr Liikanen, SEC(2001) 261.
(2001/C 261 E/262) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1159/01 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 April 2001)
Subject: Use of preservatives and additives in the production of cheeses of protected designation of origin
Will the Commission state whether the addition of preservatives and additives not expressly provided for in product specifications is authorised in the production of cheeses of protected designation of origin?
Will the Commission also state whether the use of milk which does not comply with the criteria laid down in Annex A, Section 4 of Directive 92/46/EEC (1) is authorised in the production of cheeses of protected designation of origin, made from raw milk, which have matured for more than 60 days?
(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(2 May 2001)
The Commission reassures the Honourable Member that only products that comply with all the horizontal Community rules in force, in particular covering animal health, can be granted registration as protected designations of origin (PDOs) under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and food- stuffs (1).
Furthermore, the specifications for certain PDOs may contain provisions that are more restrictive than those laid down by the Community legislation. In such cases, those more restrictive provisions must be complied with.
(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
(2001/C 261 E/263) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1197/01 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission
(4 April 2001)
Subject: Failure of the EU/Morocco fisheries agreement negotiations: extraordinary aid for fleet conversion
The recent failure of the European Union and Morocco to reach agreement on renewing the Fisheries Agreement with Morocco has left many hundreds of Portuguese and Spanish fishermen unable to fish; moreover, the entire fleet which traditionally fished in Moroccan waters has been tied up since the end of 1999. 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/231
The economic and social impact of this situation is already severe, and has been particularly grave in certain fishing communities. In Portugal, this affects Sesimbra and the Algarve coast especially.
The failure of the Commission’s negotiations with Morocco means that it is now a matter of urgency that this part of the fleet be restructured, and thus enabled to resume fishing in more distant waters. This requires urgent, extraordinary financial support measures.
What measures has the Commission already taken, or does it intend to take, as a matter of urgency, with a view to meeting the needs and wants of the fishermen and shipowners who have been directly and seriously hit by the failure of the EU negotiations with Morocco?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(2 May 2001)
When the Fisheries Agreement with Morocco ended on 30 November 1999, some 400 Spanish and Portuguese vessels were fishing under this Agreement.
Compensation for temporary cessation of activities, co-financed with the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) was granted to the affected fleet and fishermen from 1 December 1999 till 30 June 2000 as provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (1).
As agreement was not reached, this aid was extended until 31 December 2000, under the condition that fleet conversion plans be submitted by Spain and Portugal. These plans were approved by the Commission on 30 November 2000.
There is currently a Commission proposal before the Council and the Parliament for extending the period of compensation until the end of June 2001 (2).
The Commission is also exploring the possibility of allocating extra credits for helping the conversion of the fleets affected, as requested by the European Council in Nice on 7 December 2000 (3).
It should be recalled that a wide range of socio-economic measures are already possible under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 such as (i) early-retirement schemes for fishermen, and (ii) non-renewable individual compensatory payments to fishermen to help them retrain or diversify their activities outside maritime fisheries. With respect to the vessels the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2792/ 1999 include premiums for the permanent cessation of activities (either by scrapping or by permanent transfer of the vessel to a third country, including in the framework of a joint enterprise, or permanent reassignment of the vessel for purposes other than fishing); grants are also available for the modernisation of vessels in order to allow them to turn to alternative fishing grounds and techniques, provided that such alternative activities do not jeopardise fish stocks.
The Commission will assist the Member States concerned to ensure that the conversion of both fishermen and vessels will be implemented in the best possible way.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (OJ L 337, 30.12.1999). (2) COM(2001) 62 final. (3) Document SN 400/00 (‘Presidency conclusions’), item 59. C 261 E/232 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/264) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1206/01 by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Models of privatisation and the case of Alenia Marconi Systems
The issue of privatisation has drawn attention to the serious shortcomings of the State, and has ended up dismantling its areas of influence, leaving the responsibility for seeking and maintaining employment to a market economy indebted to the interests of shareholders.
In the case of public-sector undertakings such as Finmeccanica, improvised privatisations and cooperation agreements have in practice violated the procedures laid down and regulated by government, as in the specific case of Alenia Marconi Systems.
Can the Commission confirm whether the agreements promoted by Alenia Marconi Systems in a key sector such as defence comply with the procedures laid down by ‘Segretarmi’, the body reporting directly to the Minster of Defence and the President of the Council, bearing in mind also the fact that the predominant British shareholding could have undermined the security features that the production of military hardware entails?
Can it also confirm whether the change of company status of Alenia Marconi Systems, which involved a foreign shareholding of 50 %, came about with the proper authorisations required and regularly granted by the four ministries responsible, those for industry, defence, foreign affairs and home affairs?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2001)
The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction in this matter.
(2001/C 261 E/265) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1227/01 by António Campos (PSE) and Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission
(26 April 2001)
Subject: Wine fraud in Portugal
On 29 March 2001 the Portuguese press reported that 25 million litres of wine had been confiscated by the Portuguese authorities on grounds of serious presumption of fraud.
Did the Portuguese authorities inform the EU institutions of this? Has the Commission monitored this procedure? Could it provide an estimate of the volume of suspected adulterated wine held by the company in question? Can it guarantee that this company will not be granted any Community subsidy so long as such strong suspicions remain or in the event that they are confirmed?
Does the Commission not consider that this case has further highlighted the urgent need for immediate administrative and legislative action to be taken to combat fraud and adulteration of foodstuffs, such as milk, wine, oil and meat, given that such activities have taken on enormous proportions and had an extremely harmful effect on consumers, farmers, the Community budget and the reputation of Community institutions worldwide? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/233
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(12 June 2001)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(2001/C 261 E/266) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1250/01 by Regina Bastos (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(10 April 2001)
Subject: Simplified procedure for the construction of the new bridge at Entre-os-Rios, Portugal
On 4 March 2001 a tragic accident occurred on a bridge over the Douro river in Portugal, causing the deaths of 53 people who were crossing Hintze Ribeiro bridge in a bus and three cars when one of its pillars collapsed and the central sections plunged into the river.
Over and above the human drama, this accident is having extremely serious social and economic repercussions:
1. Hintze Ribeiro bridge was built 116 years ago and linked Castelo de Paiva and Entre-os-Rios;
2. Castelo de Paiva is a poor rural municipality in inland Portugal;
3. The old bridge was part of the sole route available to make the population of Castelo de Paiva less isolated and enable them to travel to neighbouring towns and villages on the other side of the river;
4. After the accident Castelo de Paiva became even more isolated, and the population is now forced to travel for more than two hours along winding, poorly maintained roads to cover 70 or 80 km in order to obtain hospital care, visit schools and colleges, reach their places of work in the Porto area, etc.;
5. The Portuguese government has announced that it is to launch the tendering procedure for the construction of the new bridge over the Douro river in April;
6. The project has a budget of more than € 17,5 million and is to be financed under the third Community support framework;
7. It will require an international invitation to tender, which will be subject to national and Community rules;
8. The foundations for the new bridge will have to be laid very soon, i.e. during summer 2001, otherwise work will have to be postponed until May/June 2002 because the strong current in the Douro river will prevent the work from being undertaken in the winter;
9. The Portuguese government, aware of the seriousness of the situation and the urgent need for the project to be completed, has already put forward internal legislation to reduce the time limits for the tendering procedure.
Is the Commission prepared, in cooperation with the Portuguese authorities, to find simplified financing and tendering procedures for the construction of the new bridge at Entre-os-Rios, in line with the urgency of the project? C 261 E/234 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2001)
The Commission is aware of the painful social and economic consequences that the populations of the neighboring region must endure as a result of the tragic accident that occurred with the Entre-os-Rios bridge and is available to discuss with the national authorities ways to address the problem within the scope of its responsibility and in accordance with Community legislation.
For the current Structural Funds programming period, the timing for the submission, evaluation and financing decisions for individual projects are under the responsibility of the managing national authorities of the individual Programs at the national level, who must decide on the schedules regarding financing decisions concerning the projects and of course ways to speed up the procedures if needed. Nevertheless these procedures and decisions must remain compatible with the applicable Community regulations and programming instruments.
The Commission would also like to inform the Honorable Member that the Community directives concerning public tenders such as Council Directive 93/37/CEE of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (1) foresees simplified procedures for awarding public contracts. Within this legal framework, the Commission is available to respond to any request from the Portuguese authorities so as to find the most appropriate solution for this case.
(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
(2001/C 261 E/267) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1278/01 by António Seguro (PSE) to the Commission
(2 May 2001)
Subject: Prepayment at filling stations
Prepayment facilities are increasingly available at petrol pumps. Will the Commission state whether it is legal for prepayment to be the only possible form of payment at filling stations?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(15 June 2001)
The matter in question does not come within its jurisdiction of the Commission.
(2001/C 261 E/268) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1301/01 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(19 April 2001)
Subject: Plans to support the Russian plutonium management and disposition and MOX plutonium fuel programmes
What communications and collaboration has the Commission had with Member State Governments and the governments of the G-8 group of leading industrial nations, concerning plans to support the Russian plutonium management and disposition and MOX plutonium fuel programmes? Are there any plans to provide financial support from Community funds for these Russian plutonium programmes? 18.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261 E/235
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (7 May 2001)
The Commission participates in the meetings of the group of eight most industrialized countries G8, from the Heads of States Summits to the technical levels meetings. Concerning the specific issue mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission is represented in the permanent Non Proliferation Expert group (NPEG) of the G8 and in the temporary Plutonium Disposition Planning Group (PDPG) created following the G8 Summit in Okinawa.
The Commission is also involved in implementing a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Union Joint Action on non-proliferation and disarmament decided by the Council at the end of 1999. This programme is implemented under close supervision of the Council and involves both issues relating to plutonium disposition and the dismantling of chemical weapons.
No decision as been taken to date to use Community funds to support the Russian plutonium programmes.
(2001/C 261 E/269) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1357/01 by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission (7 May 2001)
Subject: Evangelical radio station in Athens
1. Is the Commission aware that an evangelical minority in Greece has repeatedly been prohibited from operating a radio station in Athens?
2. Does the Commission consider that this is compatible with the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (18 June 2001)
It is not for the Commission to comment on the question raised.
(2001/C 261 E/270) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1546/01 by Peter Sichrovsky (NI) to the Commission (14 May 2001)
Subject: ‘About’ law in France
In the opinion of the Commission, does the ‘About’ bill aimed at reinforcing the legal provisions to combat associations or groupings representing a threat to public order or a major danger to the human person as a result of their criminal activities , which was adopted in the French Senate on Thursday, 3 May comply with Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention on Human Rights of 4 November 1950?
Does this law not violate freedom of religion?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (15 June 2001)
It is not for the Commission to comment on the question raised. C 261 E/236 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18.9.2001
(2001/C 261 E/271) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1594/01 by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (21 May 2001) Subject: Gare du Luxembourg, Brussels, and the free movement of services The Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Belge (SNCB) has awarded a contract to the AEL-GROUP T-Tractabel consortium to draw up designs relating to the ‘Gare du Luxembourg’ in Brussels in connection with construction of the projected D4 and D5 buildings in the Place du Luxembourg. The SNCB, acting in its capacity as owner, has applied to the Region of Brussels Capital (municipality of Ixelles) for a planning certificate authorising the station renovation works (application registered on 28 April 1998) for which it is the contracting authority.
Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts must be respected by all contracting authorities within the meaning of Directive 71/305/EEC (2) and any obstacles to the free movement of services must be avoided. Can the Commission establish whether the SNCB issued an invitation to tender for the provision of services concering design and renovation work for the Gare du Luxembourg in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/50/EEC?
(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1. (2) OJ L 185, 16.8.1971, p. 5.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (11 June 2001) The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings.