ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2214/02

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 July 2002)

Subject: European Capitals of Culture new selection procedure

According to an announcement on the new selection procedure for the European Capitals of Culture, the order in which Member States will hold the event has already been decided for the period 2005-2019 (Ireland in 2005, Greece in 2006, Luxembourg in 2007, United Kingdom in 2008, etc.). In view of the European Union's forthcoming enlargement to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, can the Commission state why not a single applicant country was considered? Would not such a decision by the Commission have constituted a positive signal, one which would take into account the cultural contribution which may be expected from the new Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The system for designating the European Capital of Culture and the list of Member States, indicating the order in which they will hold the event, are set out in Decision 1419/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019(1).

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member on the subject of candidate country participation. In fact, in its initial proposal(2), it specifically stated that the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Cyprus, third countries which had concluded Cooperation Agreements containing a cultural clause and the countries of the European Economic Area would be allowed to participate in this initiative.

It is nevertheless important to note that Article 4 of the Decision provides for participation of third countries in the initiative and sets out the procedure clearly. This Article stipulates that European non-member countries may participate in the Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019. Any such country may nominate one city as a European Capital of Culture and should notify its nomination to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Committee of the Regions. The Council, acting unanimously on a recommendation from the Commission, shall officially designate one of these nominated cities as a European Capital of Culture for each year.

(1) OJ L 166, 1.7.1999.

(2) OJ C 362, 28.11.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0907/02

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Subject: Regeneration of waste oils

Article 3(1) of Directive 75/439/EEC(1), as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC(2) and Directive 91/692/EEC(3), states that where technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, Member States shall take the measures necessary to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration.

In the spring of 2001 the Commission served notice on certain Member States (including France, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK and Finland) for failure to ensure that waste oil is regenerated rather than disposed of.

On the basis of the above, has the Directorate-General responsible for environmental matters prepared any revision of the Community directives on waste oils with a view to ensuring that they are regenerated primarily for conversion into lubricants?

In view of the need to ensure that hazardous waste is dealt with in a responsible fashion, what action has the Commission taken in order to prevent any repetition of occurrences such as the release of dioxin-based pollutants and the contamination of animal feed by oil?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.

(2) OJ L 42, 12.2.1987, p. 43.

(3) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

As correctly pointed out by the Honourable Member, the Commission has launched infringement procedures against 13 Member States for failure to implement Article 3 of Directive 75/439/EEC(1) on the disposal of waste oils which provides that the Member States shall give the priority to the regeneration of waste oils. The intention of this action is to enforce an already existing obligation in Community legislation.

The Commission has no intention to propose an immediate review of the above-mentioned Directive. The Commission is, nevertheless, examining a recent study on EU waste oil collection and recovery which has endorsed the case for regeneration of waste oils. Any future proposal to review the Directive would seek to enhance incentives to regenerate such oils.

The existing Directive establishes the main obligations that have to be complied with to ensure the collection and adequate disposal of waste oils in order to prevent their illegal dumping or inadequate disposal. Indeed, the use of waste oils, as defined in the Waste Oil Directive (i.e. mineral waste oils), as animal feed would be harmful for animal health. It would thus be in infringement of Article 4 of the Framework Directive on waste which explicitly establishes that waste has to be disposed of or recovered without risks to animals.

Regarding the emissions of dioxins due to the incineration of waste oils, the new Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC repeals the Annex of Directive 75/439/EEC as amended, and thus takes over the control of the incineration of waste oils. The result has been tighter operating conditions for the incineration of waste oils and the reduction of emission limit values for several pollutants including dioxins.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2581/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: The Morrazo superhighway in Galicia

The Galician government has planned a superhighway along the Morrazo peninsula. The route follows the mountainside for a distance of 21,5 km. The inhabitants of Morrazo accept the need for the road, but consider that with the envisaged route and the technical solutions adopted, the road will cause serious social and economic problems and damage to the environment and landscape, which can and must be avoided. The peninsula is densely populated along a coastline with fishing and commercial ports and creeks and beaches which are among the best in Galicia, and a population scattered over a spectacular and beautiful mountain landscape.

The Galician government published the information study on the project in August 2000. The environmental impact assessment on the road was published by the government in July 2001, and the route and declaration of public interest of the project were approved in September that year. The preliminary acts for the occupation of the land to be expropriated are in the process of being signed. In opposition to the project submitted by the Galician government in the public information procedure, a large number of inhabitants of Morrazo 4 000 people belonging to neighbourhood associations and groups sharing common land and water supply have filed objections against parts of the route and the technical solutions which appeared in the information study published by the government in August 2000. In actual fact, many of the objections submitted by the inhabitants were incorporated by the government in its environmental assessment study of July 2000, but were not considered in the government project itself. The objections submitted by the inhabitants were ignored and the government even ignored the statements made by the Morrazo municipal authorities.

In view of all this, can the Commission say whether the superhighway is being financed by the structural funds? Does it consider that the project submitted by the government is sufficient to meet the social and economic needs and protect the environment and landscape of the Morrazo peninsula? Is the Commission aware of the circumstances of the study and the implementation of the project? Does the environmental impact study submitted by the government meet the requirements of EU directives? Has the Commission analysed whether the final version of the project meets its own requirements concerning environmental impact assessment? Is that the Commission willing to consider the statements submitted by the inhabitants of Morrazo? Does the Commission know that the Galician government is refusing the dialogue requested by the inhabitants of Morrazo who submitted objections to the superhighway project? Is it willing to promote this dialogue?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1269/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Studying the impact of applying Growth on Growth to China

Within the framework of the ATC and in view of the agreements reached in Doha concerning the application of Growth on Growth to WTO member countries, and China in particular, does the Commission possess, or intend to carry out, a study of the additional quota margins which would apply to China in terms of EU imports of Chinese textile and clothing products?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2002)

The examination by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Council for Trade in Goods of the proposals for a recalculation of the growth-on-growth rates applied to textiles quotas advanced to 1 January 2000 instead of 1 January 2002 has just started, and it is still quite uncertain whether such proposals may be agreed. It has to be noted that since the WTO Ministerial conference in Doha, China has become a Member, and therefore should such concession be made it would apply also to China.

The Commission has made two sets of estimates to calculate the value of such a concession, in terms of likely increases of Community imports of textile and clothing products over the years 2002-2004:

(a) assuming that all the quotas from all the countries were used fully, the concession would be worth a potential additional EUR 2 200 million in imports. This amount results from multiplying the increases of all the quotas regardless of their rates of utilisation by the average prices of imports. Of this amount, China would account for some EUR 740 million; however, this is a hypothetical value as only around a tenth of all the textile quotas of the Community are highly utilised;

(b) according to a more likely scenario, taking into account the utilisation rates of the quotas, the value of the concession would be around EUR 1 250 million for all WTO countries, of which some EUR 720 million would be accounted for by China. This amount results from multiplying the increases of quotas for those product categories for which the quotas are highly utilised (90 % or more) by the average prices of imports.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2325/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Equal access to fisheries resources for all Member States

In the reply which Mr Fischler, Commissioner, gave to Question H-0476/02(1) during Question Time at the European Parliament's 2 July 2002 plenary sitting in Strasbourg, he implied that, with effect from 1 January 2003, the same laws would apply to all the Member States (including Spain and Portugal), as would the same principles for determining TACs and quotas and allowing access to Community waters.

Will the Commission say whether or not Mr Fischler's words meaning that with effect from 1 January 2003, both Spain and Portugal will have free access to fisheries resources within Community waters under the same terms and conditions as the other Member States (i.e. without any discrimination whatsoever)?

(1) Oral reply of 2 July 2002.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The expiry of the transitional period laid down in the 1985 Act of Accession means that, with effect from 1 January 2003:

- fishing vessels from Member States that were excluded from certain parts of Community waters, such as the North Sea, will have free access to those waters;

- those vessels may fish for species that are not subject to catch limitations and quota allocations under the Common Fisheries Policy;

- the allocation by the Community of new fishing opportunities in those waters (i.e. those not already allocated) will take into account the interests of all Member States, in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 4 (iii) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture(1).

(1) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1191/02

by Jacques Poos (PSE) to the Council

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Destruction of EU-funded Palestinian infrastructures

Following the large-scale attacks and numerous instances of violence perpetrated by the Israeli army during their recent campaign to reoccupy autonomous Palestinian territories, can the Council reassess the damage caused to infrastructures funded by the EU and its Member States?

Given that elementary legal principles demand that damages be made good, how does the Council intend to claim compensation from Mr Sharon's government?

Will the Council undertake to assist the Palestinian Authority in its efforts to secure just compensation through all available legal means?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The damage caused to infrastructures financed in whole or in part by the EU is being reassessed and may be followed, if a decision is taken in this respect, by reparation claims in the appropriate fora. The Council has not considered whether to support the Palestinian Authority in its own efforts to secure compensation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1095/02

by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Failure to comply with European directives on environmental impact assessment

In the municipalities of San Vendemiano, Conegliano, San Pietro di Feletto and Susegana, in the province of Treviso, there is a preliminary project to build a road to be called the Tangenziale sud, with a total length of approximately 10 kilometres.

Because of its length, type and location the overall project for this road is subject to the Italian law on environmental impact assessment implementing Directive 85/33/EEC(1), Annex II, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC(2).

Despite the substantial impact of the road, which will be located near densely populated areas and areas important for wildlife, no assessment of its environmental impact has been carried out.

My previous Written Question, P-1666/01(3), on the subject was answered by Mrs Wallström, on behalf of the Commission, on 10 July 2001.

The final project for the first stretch of the Tangenziale sud (the section between the SP47 and exit A27), approximately 2.8 km long, was approved at a service conference on 21 March 2002.

The local bodies concerned are proceeding with the planning and approval of the project section by section, without considering the road as a whole, solely in order to prevent its being subject to legislation on environmental assessment and safeguards.

No alternative to the project has ever been considered, nor the possibility of making the nearby six-lane motorway toll-free, since with the addition of new sliproads it could absorb the province's traffic.

What steps will the Commission take to ensure compliance with Community legislation on environmental impact assessment in the face of attempts to circumvent it?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(3) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 174.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law, in the light of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty. As the guardian of the EC Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

With reference to the specific situation described by the Honourable Member in his Written Question P-1666/01, the Commission opened an own initiative case (2001/2187) and sent the Italian authorities two letters requesting information and observations on the issue. They have not yet replied to these letters. In case of persistent absence of reply, the Commission might open an infringement procedure against Italy for lack of co-operation in the achievement of the Community's tasks (Article 10 of the EC treaty).

The additional information given in the present written question will be taken into account in the assessment of the case.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1399/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 May 2002)

Subject: Precise target figures for EU Member States' childcare capacity

Can the Council confirm that the Presidency conclusions of the recent Barcelona summit include precise target figures for childcare capacity in the EU Member States?

Can the Council tell me exactly what these target figures are?

Can the Council say what the precise current situation is in each of the EU Member States (i.e. how many childcare places are available per inhabitant) and what efforts each Member State must make (also in figures, please) in order actually to achieve these target figures?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council can confirm that the fifth indent of Paragraph 32 of the Presidency conclusions of the Barcelona European Council in March 2002 states the following:

Member States should remove disincentives to female labour force participation and strive, taking into account the demand for childcare facilities and in line with national patterns of provision, to provide childcare by 2010 to at least 90 % of children between 3 years old and the mandatory school age and at least 33 % of children under 3 years of age;

The Council is not aware of the precise situation in each of the Member States, and cannot indicate what efforts are needed to achieve the targets. However, the European Commission, and the Member States themselves, may be able to provide these figures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1060/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Prevention of military operations against Iraq

The reference by the President of the USA to the axis of evil and the persistent talk of imminent military operations against Iraq have alarmed public opinion in the Member States. Since any new war in Iraq will also directly affect European interests in the region, what common position has the Council adopted in response to this likely eventuality and what initiatives has it taken to avert further military operations against Iraq?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council remains convinced that any solution as regards Iraq must involve the complete, and unconditional implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions, in particular Resolutions 687, 1284 and 1382, and that Iraq must comply with its disarmament obligations. The Council is monitoring closely the meetings with the UN Secretary-General and supports his efforts. In fact, the Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs, Naji Sabri, has met the UN Secretary-General on two occasions, on 7 March and 1 and 2 May. The UN Secretary-General felt, at the end of the last meeting, that rapid progress had been made, bearing in mind in particular the fact that the Iraqi Minister had been accompanied by senior officials who were disarmament experts and that genuine dialogue had taken place on the application of the Resolutions and cooperation with UNMOVIC. The next meeting [is to be held in about one month, and the EU hopes that it will yield positive, tangible results](1).

(1) To be updated by corrigendum if this reply has not reached the European Parliament by the date in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2270/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: FAO Paper on good agricultural practices

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) has published a discussion paper entitled Good Agricultural Practices which contains a very helpful section on Animal Welfare. This states, among other things, that: the isolation of animals (such as in veal crates or sow stalls) should be prohibited; overcrowding should be avoided and maximum stocking densities should be conformed to; non-therapeutic mutilations, such as tail-docking and de-beaking, should be avoided; and the transport of live animals and the use of livestock markets should be minimised.

Has the Commission considered the FAO discussion paper and does it support the section on Animal Welfare?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

The Commission welcomes the initiative of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) to formulate Good Agricultural Practices including animal welfare aspects.

The Commission works actively to create a better understanding of Community concerns on animal welfare at international level. The international dimension of the animal welfare policy of the Commission aims at answering legitimate concerns of the European citizen and not at creating new barriers for trade in animal products.

The FAO initiative, as outlined by the Honourable Member, supports the proactive approach of the Commission.

The Commission gives full support to technical initiatives to develop harmonised standards on animal welfare in a multilateral context, such as the recent initiative undertaken by the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2109/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Bomb-making instructions on the Internet

According to reports in the Greek press, there are sites on the Internet which provide all the information needed to make anything from a Molotov cocktail to an atomic bomb. Moreover, once they are published on the Internet, these bomb-making manuals are also accessible to children.

In its edition of 4 April 1998, the Washington Post described (in a report by Fern Shen) electronic conversations between 14-year-old children concerning which materials make the most effective bomb casing. Furthermore, children have used instructions found on the Internet to construct explosive devices which they have tested on actual targets. Examples include three high-school students from Utah in the USA who were arrested for blowing up a church and two 15-year-olds from Ogden who were sent to a rehabilitation centre for having a bomb in their possession.

Is the Commission aware of this issue and what are its views thereon? What measures has it taken or will it take in the future to protect not only children but also adults from such information via the Internet?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

It is possible to find pages on the Internet which give information, or which purport to give information, on how to make bombs. This is a matter for serious concern, which the Honourable Member is right to raise.

Whether such sites are illegal depends on their exact content and the provisions of national law. Action by the police to arrest the author is possible if the content is illegal. Illegal content should be removed by the provider hosting it on notice. Members of the public can report such content to hotlines which will assess the report and pass it on the appropriate body.

It is also possible for concerned parents who wish their children not to have access to sites of this type to use filtering software on the computer with Internet access, or to subscribe to a filtered Internet access service.

It is important for Internet users, particularly children, to be aware of the risks of the Internet as well as its benefits and ways of dealing with them. Heightened awareness of users is an effective way of countering misleading, dangerous and irresponsible information.

The Commission currently provides financial support for hotlines, for development of filtering software and for awareness actions under the Safer Internet Action Plan, a four-year programme which expires on 31 December 2002. The Commission has proposed an extension of two years to the Action Plan, which is currently under examination in the European Parliament and Council.